Lead Opinion
This medical malpractice case comes to us on a procedural issue. In December 1985, a wrongful death suit was filed by the administratrix of the estate of Frank Speed against the Helena Hospital. The complaint was amended in February 1986, to join the hospital’s insurer, Cigna Insurance Company. On June 4, 1986, the cirсuit court entered an order dismissing the action against the hospital and finding that the claim against Cigna was barred by the statute of limitations.
On June 17,1986, the administratrix moved thаt the court vacate or reconsider its June 4th order insofar as it related to Cigna. Shortly thereafter, counsel for Cigna and the administratrix contacted the trial judge and evidently agreed that the order should be modified and the court set a hearing on the matter for August 21,1986. On that date counsel appeared and on motion of the administratrix, the hearing was rescheduled for September 15, 1986. At the September hearing, Cigna objected to any further proceedings, arguing that because ninety days had elapsed since the entry of the order of dismissal the court no longer had jurisdiction.
By letter dated October 25, 1986, the trial cоurt wrote counsel that inasmuch as both parties had notified the court within thirty days of the June 4th order that the order should be amended, and that a hearing was schеduled originally within ninety days of that order, it had jurisdiction to hear the matter. The court announced that the June 4th order would be modified to dismiss the action as to the hospital but not as to Cigna. An order to that effect was entered on February 20, 1987.
Cigna appeals from this most recent order, contending only that the cоurt was without jurisdiction to make any further orders after the lapse of ninety days from the order of June 4th, citing ARCP Rule 60(b) and ARAP Rule 4.
We cannot review this case on aрpeal because the order appealed from, the denial of a motion to dismiss, is not an appealable order. ARAP Rule 2. The denial of a motion to dismiss an action is not a final judgment from which an appeal can be taken. Epperson v. Biggs,
While the trial cоurt’s jurisdiction of the subject matter is obviously essential to an action, a disputed ruling on that issue does not render an order appealable. A ruling on jurisdictiоn is not a basis for appealing an order under ARAP Rule 2. While we have said the question of jurisdiction can be “raised at any time,” Head v. Caddo Hills School District,
The purpose of Rule 2 is to avoid piecemeal litigation. Should we consider Cigna’s appeal and affirm the order, and subsequent disputes occurred in future proceedings, the case could be appealed a second time, resulting in two appeals where one would suffice. Fratesi v. Bond,
Appeal dismissed.
Lead Opinion
Supplemental Opinion on Rehearing
March 21, 1988
Our deсision in this case, released on February 16,1988, was wrong. We dismissed the appeal because we regarded it as an attempt to appeal from аn order denying a motion by the defendant, Cigna, to dismiss the action. We said that because the order was not final it was not appealable. Ark. R. App. P. 2; Heffnеr v. Harrod,
By petition for rehearing Cigna has pointed out that such an order is appealable, even though it does not dispose of the action, when it is entered more than ninety days after an earlier order it purports to modify. Thus, in Schueck Steel, Inc. v. McCarthy Bros. Co.,
As noted in our original opinion, on June 4,1986, the circuit court entered an order dismissing the claim of the aрpellee against Cigna and Helena Hospital. Thirteen days later the appellee filed a motion to vacate or reconsider the order. A hearing was held on August 21, and on motion of appellee the hearing was continued until September 15, more than ninety days after the June 4 order. At this point Cignа asked that the motion be denied because it was not filed within ten days of the order, as required by ARCP Rule 56(b), and because the court had no power to vaсate its order after ninety days except in accordance with ARCP Rule 60(c), the requirements of which were not met nor even alleged.
The motion seеms to have been taken under advisement, though we find nothing in the record to that effect. However, on February 19,1987, the circuit court ordered the reinstatemеnt of the action as to Cigna. Cigna has appealed, and we reverse.
To decide this case on its merits we need look no farther than the fact the trial court did not act on the motion within ninety days. In Burgess v. Burgess,
When the circuit court failed to modify or vacate its June 4 order within ninety days, it lost all power to act under ARCP Rule 60(b). Hayden v. Hayden,
We are not overlooking the finding in the February 19 order that on July 21,1986, “defendant’s attorney advised Judge Wilkinson by letter that it had no objection to the motion and agreed to modify the order of June 4, 1986.” Whether counsel agreed to partial modification or to the setting aside of the order in its entirety is not explained, as the aрpellee has filed no brief, and the letter of July 21,1986, is not to be found in the record. Even so, the wording of Rule 60(b) and our cases relevant to it, point plainly to the conclusion that if a change is to be made in a judgment, decree or order under Rule 60(b), it must be done within ninety days or not at all. Thus, it was the responsibility of counsel or the court itself to see to it that any modification of the June 4 order, whether agreed to by counsel or simply directed by the court, was entered within ninety days.
Rehearing granted and the order appealed from is reversed.