Watkins v. City of Paragould
2013 Ark. App. 539
Ark. Ct. App.2013Background
- The City of Paragould sought a prescriptive easement and an injunction to prevent Connie and Richard Watkins from interfering with the City's maintenance of electrical lines after confrontations over tree trimming.
- Connie Watkins had been arrested for disorderly conduct in 2006; her conviction was later affirmed on appeal.
- The City filed a petition in Greene County Circuit Court; the Watkinses filed a counterclaim with many counts, several of which remained pending when the injunction was decided.
- The trial court entered an injunction on May 10, 2012, enjoining the Watkinses from interfering with the City’s prescriptive easement; the counterclaim, however, remained unresolved.
- The Watkinses appealed the May 10 order and related posttrial orders; the City moved to strike the appeal for lack of a final order under Ark. R. Civ. P. 54(b).
- The circuit court later entered a nunc pro tunc “Addendum” purporting to be a Rule 54(b) certificate, but it was not attached to or incorporated into the May 10 judgment and did not appear immediately after the court’s signature on the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court’s separate nunc pro tunc Addendum satisfied Rule 54(b) to make the May 10 injunction final and appealable | Watkins argued the Addendum made the injunction final and permitted immediate appeal | City argued the Addendum was insufficient because Rule 54(b) requires the certificate to appear on the judgment itself after the court’s signature | Court held the Addendum did not comply with Rule 54(b); certificate must appear on the judgment, so no final order existed and appeal was dismissed |
| Whether the interlocutory-injunction appellate rule (Ark. R. App. P.–Civ. 2(a)(6)) provided appellate jurisdiction despite lack of a Rule 54(b) certificate | Watkins implicitly relied on appealability of injunction | City noted the record was not filed within the 30-day deadline required for interlocutory appeals | Court held Rule 2(a)(6) did not confer jurisdiction because the record was filed well beyond the 30-day filing period |
Key Cases Cited
- Ray & Sons Masonry Contractors, Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 353 Ark. 201, 114 S.W.3d 189 (2003) (construing mandatory compliance with civil procedure rules where the word “shall” appears)
- Watkins v. State, 377 S.W.3d 286 (Ark. App. 2010) (affirming Connie Watkins’s disorderly-conduct conviction)