Court of Appeals

Decision Information

Decision Content

Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 227 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. CV-13-519 SEECO, INC; JOYCE WALLS, Opinion Delivered April 9, 2014 INDIVIDUALLY; AND JACK AND JOYCE WALLS AS TRUSTEES OF APPEAL FROM THE WHITE THE JACK G. WALLS AND JOYCE J. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT WALLS REVOCABLE TRUST [NO. CV-2009-679] APPELLANTS V. CARVER L. HOLDEN; CHESAPEAKE OPERATING, INC.; CHESAPEAKE EXPLORATION LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; CHESAPEAKE EXPLORATION, LLC; CHESAPEAKE INVESTMENTS, an Oklahoma Limited Partnership; BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY; BHP BILLITON HONORABLE TOM HUGHES, PETROLEUM (FAYETTEVILLE), JUDGE LLC; AND RIVERBEND EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION, LLC APPELLEES DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE RHONDA K. WOOD, Judge SEECO, Inc., Joyce Walls individually, and Joyce and Jack Walls, as trustees of a family trust, appeal from an order establishing Carver L. Holden as owner of certain mineral rights. Because the order is not final, we lack jurisdiction to hear the appeal. We therefore dismiss without prejudice.
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 227 Joyce Walls sued Carver Holden and his assignee, Chesapeake (along with several related entities), to quiet title to a one-half mineral interest in approximately ninety-five acres of land in White County. SEECO intervened to protect its lease with Joyce Walls, and the Walls family trust intervened as the transferee of Wallss rights. By amended complaints, Walls added Chesapeakes purported assigneesBP America Production Company, BHP Billiton (Fayetteville) Petroleum, LLC, and Riverbend Exploration and Production, LLCas defendants. All defendants filed answers. Additionally, Chesapeake filed a cross claim against Holden to recover its costs of defense and a lease bonus it had paid to Holden should the court determine that Walls owned half of the mineral interest. The court ruled that Holden owned the mineral rights in full. The court further found that Chesapeake had rights under the Holden lease and that Riverbend had rights under an assignment from Chesapeake. The courts order did not address whether defendants BP America and BHP Billiton had any rights under the Holden lease, nor did it adjudicate or otherwise dispose of Chesapeakes cross-claim against Holden. An appeal may be taken only from a final judgment or decree entered by the trial court. Ark. R. App. P.–Civ. 2(a)(1) (2013). Absent a proper certificate, an order is not final that adjudicates fewer than all of the claims in a lawsuit or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all of the parties. Ark. R. Civ. P. 54(b)(2) (2013). Whether an order is final and appealable is a jurisdictional question that may be raised by this court sua sponte. See Lamont v. Healthcare Capital, Inc., 2013 Ark. App. 283. In this case, the courts order did not contain a certificate allowing an immediate appeal pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 54(b)(1) (2013). The order is not final because the 2
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 227 order did not address the rights and liabilities of BP America and BHP Billiton nor did it resolve Chesapeakes cross-claim against Holden. The presence of an unresolved cross- claim deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction to hear the appeal, even when the cross- claim appears to have been implicitly resolved by the outcome of the trial. See Bulsara v. Watkins, 2010 Ark. 453; Ellis v. Agriliance, LLC, 2012 Ark. App. 549; Lamco Ltd. Pship II v. Pasta Concepts, Inc., 2012 Ark. App. 145. Given these circumstances, we must dismiss the appeal. Our dismissal is without prejudice to refile at a later date. LaRue v. Ground Zero Constr., Inc., 2014 Ark. App. 93. Dismissed without prejudice. W YNNE and GRUBER, JJ., agree. Perkins & Trotter, PLLC, by: R. Scott Morgan and Patrick Feilke; and Stephen C. Gardner, for appellants. Millar Jiles, LLP, by: G. Michael Millar and Lindsey K. Bell; and Lody & Arnold, Attorneys at Law, P.A., by: Wesley G. Lody, for appellees. 3
 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.