The AGRED Found. v. Friends of Lake Erling Ass'n
2017 Ark. App. 510
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Lake Erling was created in 1952 by an Act of Exchange giving the U.S. an easement for a flood-control dam/reservoir and requiring International Paper to maintain public access; AGRED succeeded to International Paper’s interests in 2013.
- After acquiring the interest, AGRED created a permit/easement program for adjacent landowners to build/maintain docks and a decal program for motorized boats.
- Friends of Lake Erling Association (FOLEA), a nonprofit of adjacent-property owners/users, sued AGRED in March 2016 seeking declaratory relief and injunctive relief, alleging AGRED’s new fees/permits unlawfully restricted public access under the Act of Exchange.
- The trial court denied AGRED’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing, finding FOLEA had standing.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment; the court granted summary judgment for FOLEA and declared FOLEA members entitled to unrestricted access to Lake Erling but omitted any ruling on whether AGRED’s permit/fee for adjacent landowners violated the Act.
- The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the trial court’s order was not final: it failed to resolve one of FOLEA’s declaratory-relief claims and there was no Rule 54(b) certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FOLEA members have unrestricted right to access Lake Erling | FOLEA: the Act of Exchange preserves public access; AGRED’s programs unlawfully restrict access | AGRED: authority to regulate use of its property interests, including permits/fees | Court granted summary judgment declaring FOLEA members entitled to unrestricted access (but order omitted resolution of permit/fee claim) |
| Whether AGRED may require adjacent landowners to obtain permits/pay fees for docks and structures | FOLEA: permit/fee requirement violates the Act of Exchange | AGRED: permit/fee program is within its rights as successor in interest | Trial court’s final order was silent on this claim; appellate court found lack of finality and dismissed appeal for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether the trial court’s order was final and appealable | FOLEA: order granting summary judgment on access issue is appealable | AGRED: finality challenged as to other claims (implicit) | Court of Appeals: order was not final because it did not dispose of all claims and lacked Rule 54(b) certification; appeal dismissed |
| Whether appellate court had jurisdiction | FOLEA: appealed the summary-judgment order | AGRED: cross-appealed on alleged denial of one declaratory request | Court: no jurisdiction absent final order or Rule 54(b) certification; appeal dismissed without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- J-McDaniel Constr. Co. v. Dale E. Peters Plumbing Ltd., 2013 Ark. 177 (an order must dispose of all claims and parties to be final and appealable)