Jensen v. Conrad House, CA01-379

• Decision Date: 12 December 2001
• Docket Number: CA01-379
• Parties: NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION ELIZABETH JENSON APPELLANT V. CONRAD HOUSE APPELLEE CA01-379 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II
• Court: Arkansas Court of Appeals

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

ELIZABETH JENSON APPELLANT

V.

CONRAD HOUSE APPELLEE

CA01-379

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION II

December 12, 2001

APPEAL FROM THE HOT SPRING COUNTY PROBATE COURT, [NO. P-98-200-1], HON. JOHN W. COLE,PROBATE JUDGE

APPEAL DISMISSED

JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, JUDGE

This appeal is from a finding of contempt that arose in the course of a guardianship case. The order is not final because, although a hearing was pending to determine what punishment would be appropriate, at the time this appeal was filed no punishment had been decided on or imposed.

As a general rule, a finding of contempt is an appealable order in the sense that one need not wait until the underlying proceedings are concluded to appeal from the contempt. See Hutchins v. Hutchins, 330 Ark. 426, 954 S.W.2d 249 (1997). However, a contempt order must be a final contempt order to be appealable, i.e., it must be a final disposition of the contempt matter as between the appellant and the court. Taylor v. Taylor, 26 Ark. App. 31, 759 S.W.2d 222 (1988). In the present case, the record indicates that punishment for the contempt would be decided at a future hearing. Thus, there has been no final disposition of the contempt matter, and the appeal must be dismissed for lack of finality.

Appeal dismissed.

Jennings and Vaught, JJ., agree.