Honeycutt v. Foster

• Decision Date: 29 November 2007
• Docket Number: No. 07-665.,07-665.
• Citation: 268 S.W.3d 875,371 Ark. 545
• Parties: Gregory HONEYCUTT, Appellant, v. Judge Phillip FOSTER, Ouachita County District Court, Appellee.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

268 S.W.3d 875

371 Ark. 545

Gregory HONEYCUTT, Appellant, v.Judge Phillip FOSTER, Ouachita County District Court, Appellee.

No. 07-665.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

November 29, 2007.

Wm. C. Plouffe, Jr., El Dorado, AR, for appellant.

Rainwater, Holt & Sexton, P.A., by: Michael R. Rainwater, JaNan Arnold Davis, and Jason E. Owens, Little Rock, AR, for appellee.

DONALD L. CORBIN, Justice.

This appeal arises from the Ouachita County Circuit Court's order denying AppellantGregory Honeycutt's petition and amended petition for writ of mandamus directed at AppelleeOuachita County District Court Judge Phillip Foster(referred to as the "District Court"), as well as the circuit court's order granting Honeycutt's motion to voluntarily nonsuit his petition for writ of prohibition and denying his motion for additional ruling and for new trial/reconsideration/relief from order.On appeal, Honeycutt raises two arguments for reversal: the circuit court(1) improperly delayed ruling on the petitions to Honeycutt's prejudice; and (2) clearly erred and abused its discretion when it failed to compel the District Court to rule on his second motion to transfer.Because this is a case of mandamus, jurisdiction is pursuant to Ark. Sup.Ct. R. 1-2(a)(3).We dismiss the appeal as it is moot.

In 2004, Honeycutt brought a cause of action against Stone Timber Co., Inc., in Union County District Court.In August 2004, Stone Timber filed a motion to dismiss the case alleging that venue was improper in Union County because Stone Timber's residence was Ouachita County.On September 27, 2004, the Union County District Court dismissed the case because venue was improper.Then, on October 6, 2004, Honeycutt filed a complaint against Stone Timber in the District Court.

The following has occurred since Honeycutt's complaint was filed in the District Court.On March 24, 2005, Honeycutt filed a motion to transfer his case against Stone Timber back to Union County District Court because venue was proper there and that court erred in dismissing the case.Honeycutt filed a second motion to transfer, on April 12, 2005, alleging that the District Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and that venue was proper in Union County Circuit Court.After filing this second motion, Honeycutt's attorney sent multiple letters to the District Court inquiring about the status of the case against Stone Timber.

Then, on November 21, 2006, Honeycutt filed a petition for writ of mandamus in Ouachita County Circuit Court asking the circuit court to direct the District Court to issue an order on the motions to transfer.On December 6, 2006, the District Court issued an order denying Honeycutt's motion to transfer based upon its finding that venue was appropriate.The next day, the District Court responded to Honeycutt's petition in circuit court stating that it had ruled on the motions to transfer by denying them by its December 6 order.

On December 27, 2006, Honeycutt filed an amended petition for writ of mandamus in the circuit court claiming that the District Court's December 6 order failed to address the jurisdictional issue he raised in his second motion to transfer.Thus, he sought a writ of mandamus to compel the District Court to fully and completely rule on the matter.The District Court again responded that it had ruled on the motions by denying them.On January 25, 2007, Honeycutt filed another amended petition for writ of mandamus and a petition for writ of prohibition in the circuit court.

The circuit court, on February 7, 2007, issued an order of dismissal denying Honeycutt's petition and amended petition for writ of mandamus because the District Court had issued an order denying Honeycutt's motion to transfer.Following this order, the District Court filed a motion to dismiss, on February 12, 2007, asking the circuit court to dismiss the amended petition for mandamus and the petition for prohibition.In April 2007, Honeycutt filed a motion for summary disposition and a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law, as well as a motion for additional ruling and for new trial/reconsideration/relief from order.

On April 23, 2007, Honeycutt filed a motion to voluntarily nonsuit his petition for writ of prohibition.The circuit court, on April 24, 2007, granted the motion to voluntarily nonsuit, but denied Honeycutt's motion for additional ruling and for new trial/reconsideration/relief from order.That same day, Honeycutt filed a notice of appeal from the February 7 and April 24 orders.

A few months later, on September 7, 2007, the District Court issued an order transferring Honeycutt's case against Stone Timber to the Ouachita County Circuit Court.Specifically, the District Court found Honeycutt's second motion to transfer to be without merit because the District Court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the matter.However, because the circuit court had concurrent jurisdiction with the District Court on this matter, "upon its own motion, sua sponte, and out of an abundance of caution,"the case was transferred to the Ouachita County Circuit Court.A notice of transfer was filed with the circuit court on September 12, 2007.

As stated above, Honeycutt raises two arguments for reversal.First, he argues that the circuit court improperly delayed ruling on the petitions to his prejudice.In support of this argument, Honeycutt claims that the circuit court violated Ark. Code Ann. § 16-115-103(Repl.2006) and his rights to due process by not ruling on his petition for writ of mandamus, amended petitions for mandamus, and petition for writ of prohibition "for months."Second, Honeycutt argues...