Roberts v. Riege
2017 Ark. App. 408
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Appellants Lynn Roberts and Vicki Steen appealed a Stone County circuit court order awarding land to intervenor Rita May Riege Revocable Trust via jury verdicts for adverse possession and boundary by acquiescence.
- The circuit court labeled its order a “final order and judgment” but described the awarded land only by reference to a point on Raccoon Lane and deferred a precise description to a future survey to be completed by the defendant/intervenor.
- The order gave the trust 45 days to obtain the survey and allowed extension if needed.
- Riege moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of a final, appealable order under Arkansas appellate rules and Ark. R. Civ. P. 54(b); she argued the order left unresolved matters and lacked the specificity required for boundary decisions.
- Appellants responded attaching (but not filing into the record) a survey and asking for leave to supplement the record if the court required the survey to render the order final.
- The Court of Appeals concluded the record lacked the required survey or sufficient description to make the order final and dismissed the appeal without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Roberts/Steen) | Defendant's Argument (Riege Trust) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court’s order is a final, appealable judgment | Order is final as labeled and resolves ownership; any survey can be supplied to support appeal | Order is not final because it defers the property's legal description to a future survey and contemplates further proceedings | Dismissed: order not final; appeal premature without a definite property description in the record |
| Whether Ark. R. Civ. P. 54(b) or appellate rules were satisfied to allow immediate appeal | Implied that finality exists or record can be supplemented to show finality | No certificate or express 54(b) findings; appellate rules require adjudication of all claims or express language to permit piecemeal appeal | Held: no 54(b) certification; appeal improper |
| Whether a subsequent survey (not in record) cures the finality defect | Survey exists (per appellants’ counsel) and would make order final; request to supplement record | Survey not in the record before the trial court when order entered; cannot be considered on appeal now | Held: survey not in record; cannot be considered; dismissal without prejudice appropriate |
| Whether precedent requires specific, in-order property description in boundary disputes | Appellants urge consideration of merits and later inclusion of description | Precedent requires orders to describe boundaries sufficiently to be identified by the order itself to avoid piecemeal litigation | Held: followed precedent requiring sufficient description; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Petrus v. Nature Conservancy, 330 Ark. 722, 957 S.W.2d 688 (explains final-order requirement and need for boundary descriptions in decree)
- Rice v. Whiting, 248 Ark. 592, 452 S.W.2d 842 (permitting decision on merits where existing survey in record supplies specificity)
- Boyster v. Shoemake, 101 Ark. App. 148, 272 S.W.3d 139 (addresses sufficiency of property descriptions and post-decision procedures)
- Adams v. Atkins, 97 Ark. App. 328, 249 S.W.3d 166 (discusses appellate treatment when descriptions are deficient)
- Jennings v. Burford, 60 Ark. App. 27, 958 S.W.2d 12 (addresses finality and boundary-description requirements)