Boyett v. Boyett, 79-329
| Decision Date | 12 May 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-329,79-329 |
| Citation | 269 Ark. 36,598 S.W.2d 86 |
| Parties | Charles Comer BOYETT, Jr., Appellant, v. Harriett Hoffman BOYETT, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Lightle, Beebe & Raney, Searcy, for appellant.
Wright, Lindsey & Jennings, Little Rock, for appellee.
Appellant, Charles Comer Boyett, Jr., filed a complaint for divorce on June 6, 1979, and appellee Harriett Hoffman Boyett filed her answer and cross-complaint on June 22, 1979. Appellant filed his answer to the cross-complaint on September 17, 1979. On October 2, 1979, appellant filed a motion for declaratory judgment, asking that the chancery court declare that Ark.Stat.Ann. § 34-1214 (Repl.1962), rather than Act 705 of 1979, controls the disposition and division of property, if a divorce should be granted. After a hearing on the motion was held on November 8, 1979, the chancellor held that Act 705 of 1979, not Ark.Stat.Ann. § 34-1214, was controlling. In the declaratory judgment, the court stated that the judgment was final and appealable. We do not agree with the chancellor in respect to the finality of the judgment and dismiss the appeal.
In Johnson v. Johnson, 243 Ark. 656, 421 S.W.2d 605, we stated the requisites of finality essential to appealability of an order or judgment of a trial court. We said:
* * * For a judgment to be final and appealable, it must in form or effect: terminate the action; operate to divest some right so as to put it beyond the power of the court to place the parties in their former condition after the expiration of the term; dismiss the parties from the court; discharge them from the action; or conclude their rights to the matter in controversy.
The declaratory judgment met none of these requirements. In Johnson, we further said:
* * * An appeal will not lie from an interlocutory order relating only to some question of law or matter of practice in the course of the proceeding, leaving something remaining to be done by the court entering the order or by some court having jurisdiction to entertain the same and proceed further therewith. * * * See also, Allred v. National Old Line Ins. Co., 245 Ark. 893, 435 S.W.2d 104; H. E. McConnell & Son v. Sadle, 248 Ark. 1182, 455 S.W.2d 880.
The filing of the motion for a declaratory judgment in the divorce proceeding was nothing more than a request that the trial court make a preliminary declaration of law. The declaratory judgment was nothing more than an interlocutory order.
We are not unaware of the statement in City of Batesville v. Ball, 100 Ark. 496, 140 S.W. 712, Ann.Cas.1913C, 1317, that when an issue of law is passed upon by a court and an order is made which determines the rights of the parties in the action so far as that court is concerned, then such order becomes the final determination of the cause from which an appeal will lie. But this order is not appealable under that rule. The order in this case did not finally determine the rights of the parties. The parties are not divorced, and we do not know that they ever will be. The trial court's judgment was merely a declaration of law. Such a declaration in a separate and independent action filed under Ark.Stat.Ann. § 34-2501 et seq. (Repl.1962) when a justiciable controversy exists, in anticipation of future litigation, would be proper and the judgment appealable. Andres v. First Arkansas Development Finance Corp., 230 Ark. 594, 324 S.W.2d 97. But declaratory relief is not proper when the identical questions involved in the declaratory judgment proceeding are already at issue between the parties in a pending action. Mid-State Construction Co. v. Means, 245 Ark. 691, 434 S.W.2d 292; City of Cabot v. Morgan, 228 Ark. 1084, 312 S.W.2d 333. Cf. Green Bay Packaging Co., Inc. v. Hoganson & Associates, Inc., 362 F.Supp. 78 (N.D.Ill.1973). The fact that the request for a declaratory judgment was made by motion in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martin v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc.
...Morgan, 228 Ark. 1084, 312 S.W.2d 333 (1958). Declaratory-judgment procedure is not a proper means of trying a case. Boyett v. Boyett, 269 Ark. 36, 598 S.W.2d 86 (1980); see also, Flashner Med. Partnership v. Marketing Mgt., 189 Ill.App.3d 45, 136 Ill.Dec. 653, 545 N.E.2d 177, (1989); Marti......
-
Finn v. McCuen
...is thus before us in this original action which does not seek declaratory relief but rather seeks a direct remedy. See Boyett v. Boyett, 269 Ark. 36, 598 S.W.2d 86 (1980), in which we noted that declaratory relief may not be sought where the issue is pending in other litigation, and UHS of ......
-
Vanderpool v. Fidelity & Cas. Ins. Co.
...is final and subject to appeal. United States v. State of Washington, 759 F.2d 1353 (9th Cir.1985). The case of Boyett v. Boyett, 269 Ark. 36, 598 S.W.2d 86 (1980) is instructive. In that case, Mr. Boyett filed for divorce on June 6, 1979, and Mrs. Boyett filed an answer and cross-complaint......
-
Johnson v. McDaniel, 08-404 (Ark. 5/15/2008)
...Moreover, such an action is not a proper means of trying a case or various issues involved in it on a piecemeal basis. Boyett v. Boyett, 269 Ark. 36, 598 S.W.2d 86 (1980). Motion for rule on clerk treated as motion for belated appeal and 1. In 2004, petitioner was found guilty by a jury of ......