Planchon v. Local Police & Fire Retirement System
2015 Ark. 131
| Ark. | 2015Background
- Harold W. Planchon appealed a circuit-court judgment affirming the Arkansas Local Police & Fire Retirement System’s denial of duty-related disability benefits for his colon-cancer diagnosis.
- The record was lodged in December 2013, but Planchon died before the appeal was submitted for decision.
- Planchon’s counsel filed a motion for revivor and substitution (to replace the deceased appellant) or, alternatively, for remand to the circuit court so a substitution could be made there.
- The Supreme Court of Arkansas treated the motion as a separate case and reviewed whether it could itself grant revivor and substitution on appeal.
- The court found no current statute or appellate rule authorizing the court to revive and substitute a deceased appellant on appeal because relevant statutes had been repealed by Act 1148 of 2013.
- The court denied the motion to grant revivor and substitution, granted the alternative motion, and remanded to the circuit court for the decedent’s representatives to seek substitution there; it referred the issue to the Supreme Court Committee on Civil Practice for potential appellate-rule amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether this Court can grant revivor and substitute a deceased appellant on appeal | Planchon’s counsel asked the court to revive the action and substitute the appellant so the appeal could proceed | Appellee implicitly argued that substitution must follow existing law and procedure; court evaluated statutory/rule basis | Court held it lacked authority to revive and substitute because the statutes that previously allowed such action were repealed and no appellate rule authorizes it |
| Whether Rule 25 or other rules permit substitution on appeal | Counsel relied on Rule 25 and historical practice to support substitution | Court noted Rule 25 and Amendment 80 were cited as reasons past statutes were repealed, but no rule or statute now provides procedure for substitution on appeal | Court held Rule 25 and existing rules do not provide a mechanism for substitution on appeal absent circuit-court action |
| Whether remand to circuit court is appropriate alternative relief | Planchon requested remand if this court could not itself substitute | Appellee had no persuasive objection to remand noted in opinion | Court granted remand to permit the decedent’s representatives to seek revivor/substitution in circuit court |
| Whether appellate rules should be amended to address substitutions when an appellant dies | Implicitly, petitioner argued the appellate process should allow continuation without remand | Appellee did not contest requesting rule-change; court invited rulemaking body to consider amendment | Court referred the issue to the Supreme Court Committee on Civil Practice to consider amending the Rules of Appellate Procedure |
Key Cases Cited
- Sneed v. Sneed, 172 Ark. 1135, 291 S.W. 999 (1927) (example of substitution on appeal when statute authorized revivor)
- Anglin v. Cravens, 76 Ark. 122, 88 S.W. 833 (1905) (applied statute permitting appointment of special administrator to revive suit in name of deceased party)
- Taylor v. Landherr, 101 Ark. App. 279, 275 S.W.3d 656 (2008) (substitution of deceased appellee applied under former Ark. Code Ann. § 16-62-106(a) )