Peraza v. United Financial Casualty Co., 453 S.W.3d 693

In Feb 2012, James Beene’s vehicle struck Jose and Leticia Peraza’s vehicle; Beene’s insurer United filed a declaratory-judgment action in Sept 2012 seeking rescission/reformation of Beene’s policy based on alleged cancellation and misrepresentations.
Peraza filed a counterclaim asserting third-party rights under Ark. Code § 23-89-303(d)(1).
Beene defaulted for failure to respond; the circuit court entered default judgment against Beene and denied Peraza’s declaratory relief in a July 2013 letter opinion, but later entered a final order granting Peraza the relief he sought on the merits (Sept 18, 2013).
Peraza sought attorney’s fees; a handwritten notation on a counsel letter filed Sept 10 stated "Attorneys fees denied Amy Brazil 8/26/13." Peraza appealed from that notation on Oct 7, 2013.
Peraza later filed a formal motion for attorney’s fees (Oct 8) and requested a hearing (Oct 9), but no hearing occurred and the court did not rule on that motion.
United moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing the handwritten notation was not a final, appealable order; the Court of Appeals granted the motion and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Sept 10 handwritten notation denying fees is a final, appealable order	Peraza: the notation was a final ruling that concluded his right to fees	United: notation is not a separate, entered order and therefore not appealable	Court: Not appealable — not a separate Rule 58 document and not final because subsequent final judgment was entered
Whether a judge’s handwritten notation on counsel correspondence qualifies as an "order" under Ark. R. Civ. P. 58	Peraza: treated the notation as an effective denial of fees	United: Rule 58 requires separate document; notation fails that requirement	Court: Handwritten notation on a letter is not a separate document as required by Rule 58
Whether an award/denial of attorney’s fees can be made prior to entry of final judgment	Peraza: the notation concluded fee rights already	United: fees are collateral and governed by Rule 54(e), which applies only after entry of judgment	Court: Fees are collateral; Rule 54(e) contemplates filing after entry of judgment, so premature denial on notation is improper
Whether appellate jurisdiction exists to review the fee denial	Peraza: appellate review proper because rights were concluded by the notation	United: no jurisdiction because no appealable order exists	Court: Dismissed appeal for lack of jurisdiction; no fee-related order properly entered for review

Roberts v. Roberts, 14 S.W.3d 529 (Ark. Ct. App. 2000) (defines finality requirements for judgments and separable branches)
Jones v. Flowers, 283 S.W.3d 551 (Ark. 2008) (Ark. R. Civ. P. 54(e) for attorney’s-fee motions applies only after entry of judgment)