Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 60 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No. CA10-479 Opinion Delivered January 26, 2011 APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN BRIAN CARROLL, ELLEN C OUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FORT CARROLL, BRIAN T. CARROLL SMITH DISTRICT LIVING TRUST, PARK PLAZA, LLC, [NO. CV-2009-1290] AND CARROLL RESOURCES, LLC APPELLANTS HONORABLE J. MICHAEL V. FITZHUGH, JUDGE JAY D. BAGGETT APPELLEE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE DAVID M. GLOVER, Judge Brian Carroll, Ellen Carroll, Brian T. Carroll Living Trust, Park Plaza, LLC, and Carroll Resources, LLC, appeal from a decision in favor of appellee, Jay Baggett. These parties were involved in three transactions: 1) the purchase of Park Plaza Shopping Center in Fort Smith (Park Plaza LLC); 2) a loan from Carroll Resources, LLC, to Baggett; 3) the sale of “The Tire Guys” from Carroll to a third party named John Oliver, with assistance from Baggett. Disputes associated with these transactions resulted in a lawsuit. Following the trial of this matter, the court entered an order on January 19, 2010, one on February 23, 2010, and one on March 11, 2010.
Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 60 Each of these three orders contained language establishing their interim nature. For example, the January 19, 2010 order provided: “If after a reasonable period of time the Receiver advises that a one-half interest sale is not forthcoming, the Court would consider the property being sold in its entirety. The Court retains jurisdiction to hear any matters regarding the receivership.” The February 23, 2010 order provided: “As to Plaintiffs’ request that the Court remove the confidentiality/nondisparagement Order and that the Receiver try to sell the LLC as a whole and not as a half, the Court will rule after receipt of Defendant’s response.” The March 11, 2010 order provided: The Court has ruled on all requests except the confidentiality/non-disparagement order and the selling of Plaintiffs’ one-half interest, if possible, rather than the whole. Defendant has now responded to Plaintiffs’ Motion. . . . Finally, as to the sale of the property, as heretofore stated in the Order of January 19, 2010, reasonable efforts to sell Plaintiffs’ one-half interest should be made. However, if the Receiver advises the Court, after a reasonable period of time that a one-half interest sale is not forthcoming, then the Court would consider selling the property as a whole. Appellants filed their notice of appeal on March 24, 2010, designating the February 23, 2010 order as the one from which they were appealing. We dismiss the appeal without prejudice because none of the underlying orders are final and appealable. The orders contain language that makes clear that the trial court anticipated the possible need for further proceedings, and there is no Rule 54(b) certification. We therefore dismiss the appeal without prejudice for lack of a final order. Dismissed without prejudice. ROBBINS and WYNNE, JJ., agree. -2-
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.