Cite as
2014 Ark. App. 237
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
No. CV-13-989
Opinion Delivered April 16, 2014
A. POWELL SANDERS APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN
APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FORT
SMITH DISTRICT
[No. DR-2010-610]
V.
HONORABLE JAMES O. COX, JUDGE
ANN KAY PASSMORE
APPELLEE DISMISSED
LARRY D. VAUGHT, Judge
In this divorce proceeding, appellant A. Powell Sanders appeals two orders entered by
the Sebastian County Circuit Court. The first is an amended order distributing the marital
property of Sanders and appellee Ann Kay Passmore, and the second is an order denying
Sanders’s motion for new trial. On appeal, Sanders argues that the trial court erred in
awarding Passmore full interest in a $468,000 BKD Wealth Management Services account to
which Passmore contributed funds during the course of the marriage; in finding that Passmore
loaned Sanders’s law firm $40,991.50 and ordering him to repay the loan; and in dividing the
parties’ personal property inequitably. Because the orders from which Sanders appeal are not
final, we dismiss the appeal.
Rule 2(a)(1) of the Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure–Civil provides that an
appeal may be taken from a final judgment or decree entered by the trial court. When the
order appealed from is not final, we have no jurisdiction to decide the merits. Carroll v.
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 237
Carroll,
2013 Ark. App. 286, at 2. As a general rule, a conditional judgment, order, or decree,
the finality of which depends on certain contingencies that may or may not occur, is not a
final order for purposes of appeal.
Id.
In this case, the trial court’s amended order described four items of personal property
owned by the parties and ordered the parties to make sealed bids for each item. If neither
party bid on an item, the amended order provided that “the parties will cooperate and ask an
auctioneer to add that particular item(s) to an upcoming auction and the net proceeds will be
divided equally between the parties.”
An order announcing the trial court’s determination of the rights of the parties but
contemplating further judicial action is not appealable. Carroll, 2013 Ark. App. 286, at 2.
There, we held that the trial court’s order left matters undecided between the parties and
tasks yet to be performed: the appellee’s appointment of an auctioneer and potential objection
by the appellant; the auction and potential sale of a hunting-club membership; and the
confirmation of the sale by the court. Carroll,
2013 Ark. App. 286, at 2–3. See also Wadley v.
Wadley,
2010 Ark. App. 733, at 2–3 (dismissing an appeal for lack of a final order where it left
matters undecided between the parties, e.g., whether they would agree on identification and
division of marital property; and if not, whether they would agree on an auctioneer and
commission arrangement, sale date, place, and terms).
Likewise, in the instant case, the trial court’s amended order leaves matters undecided
between the parties and tasks yet to be performed: whether the parties will bid on the four
items of personal property, and if not, whether the parties will agree on an auctioneer, the
2
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 237
auctioneer’s commission arrangement, and the date, place, and terms of the sale. Therefore,
the amended order is not final. The order denying Sanders’s motion for new trial is silent on
this issue; thus, the lack of a final order persists. Without a final order, we have no jurisdiction
to decide the merits. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal without prejudice.
Dismissed.
GRUBER and WHITEAKER, JJ., agree.
Smith, Cohen & Horan, PLC, by: Matthew T. Horan; and
Law Office of Eddie N. Christian, by: Eddie N. Christian, for appellant.
Jones, Jackson & Moll, PLC, by: Mark A. Moll and Kathryn A. Stocks, for appellee.
3
