2015 Ark. App. 566
Ark. Ct. App.2015Background
- Jeannie Sherman and Raymond Boeckmann were divorced by Cross County Circuit Court in September 2013; Sherman appealed the property-division order.
- The decree ordered marital real and personal property sold on mutually agreeable terms; if parties could not agree, the court clerk would sell the property and split proceeds equally.
- The Court of Appeals found the decree nonfinal because the sale/clerical-sale mechanism left future events to occur before final distribution.
- The panel dismissed the appeal for want of a final order and for lack of jurisdiction to decide the merits.
- The court identified addendum and briefing deficiencies (missing amended decree, missing amended notices of appeal, missing plaintiff posttrial letter brief) and a procedural deviation (abstract bound in a separate volume without leave).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the divorce decree is a final, appealable order | Sherman implicitly treats the decree as final and appeals property division | Boeckmann relied on decree's procedural sale mechanism rendering disposition unfinished | Decree not final; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether sale-by-clerk / equal-split provision produces finality | Sherman did not successfully show final, definite division of property | Such contingency (clerk sale if no agreement) leaves future events to occur; not final | Contingent sale provision causes nonfinality (court follows recent precedents) |
| Adequacy of the addendum/record on appeal | Sherman included some materials but omitted amended decree and amended notices | Defendant points to missing documents that affect reviewability | Court noted missing amended order and amended notices; directed cure before refiling |
| Conformity of brief/abstract to appellate rules | Sherman packaged the abstract in a separate volume without motion showing good cause | Boeckmann cited rule requiring prescribed order and motion for deviation | Court criticized deviation; required motion for such formatting and encouraged correction |
Key Cases Cited
- Kelly v. Kelly, 2015 Ark. App. 147 (recent decision dismissing similar nonfinal property-division appeals)
- Moore v. Moore, 2015 Ark. App. 115 (Arkansas Supreme Court granted review of similar nonfinality dismissal)
- White v. White, 2014 Ark. App. 628 (nonfinal decree where sale mechanism left disposition contingent)
- Carroll v. Carroll, 2013 Ark. App. 286 (court held it lacks jurisdiction when appealed order is not final)
- Wadley v. Wadley, 2010 Ark. App. 733 (precedent applying finality principles in marital-property cases)
- City of Dover v. City of Russellville, 351 Ark. 557 (2003) (appellate court may raise addendum/abstract deficiencies sua sponte)