Sims v. Fletcher
| Decision Date | 30 November 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 06-463.,06-463. |
| Citation | 368 Ark. 178,243 S.W.3d 863 |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
| Parties | Micheal Dewayne SIMS; Bob Bomar; Geraldine Reshel; Kenneth Way; Nathan Hutson Way; Humnoke Farms, Inc.; Gerald P. Smith; Betty Hoyt, Appellants, v. Scott FLETCHER; Keith Moser; Barry Jewell; Jewell, Moser, Fletcher & Holleman, P.A., Appellees; John Holleman; Holleman & Associates, P.A., Intervenors/Appellees. |
Timothy O. Dudley, Little Rock, AR, for appellant Bob. Bomar.
Newland & Associates, PLLC, by: Joel F. Hoover and Ray S. Pierce, Little Rock, AR, for appellant Micheal Dewayne Sims.
Dover Dixon Horne, PLLC, by: Thomas S. Stone, Michael R. Johns, and Nona M. Robinson, Little Rock, AR, for appellants Geraldine Reshel, et al.
Stuart Law Firm, P.A., by: Ginger Stuart Schafer and J. Michael Stuart, Lonoke, AR, for appellants Kenneth Way, Nathan Hutson Way, and Humnoke Farms, Inc.
Jack, Lyon & Jones, P.A., by: John W. Fink, Little Rock, AR, for appellee Barry Jewell.
Watts, Donovan & Tilley, P.A., by: David M. Donovan, Little Rock, AR, for appellee/cross-appellant Scott Fletcher.
Edward T. Oglesby for intervenors/appellees.
This appeal stems from a proceeding for judicial dissolution of the law firm of Jewell, Moser, Fletcher & Holleman, P.A. (JMFH). Appellants Micheal Dewayne Sims,1 Bob Bomar, Geraldine Reshel, Kenneth Way, Nathan Hutson Way, and Humnoke Farms, Inc., are purported creditors, who filed claims in the dissolution proceeding against Appellees JMFH, Scott Fletcher, Keith Moser, Barry Jewell, and Intervenor John Holleman.2 Appellants argue on appeal that the trial court (1) violated their rights of due process by summarily denying their claims as creditors without notice or a hearing; (2) exceeded the scope of its jurisdiction in the dissolution proceeding by denying their claims that had been approved by the court-appointed receiver; and (3) erred in failing to issue more specific findings of fact and conclusions of law as requested by them under Ark. R. Civ. P. 52. Because there is no final, appealable order in this case, we must dismiss the appeal without prejudice.
Jewell, a shareholder in JMFH, filed a complaint seeking judicial dissolution and an accounting of JMFH's assets in Pulaski County Circuit Court on June 19, 2003, alleging that the members of the firm stopped practicing law together on or about August 31, 2002, but continued to collect receivables owed to the firm. Fletcher, also a shareholder at one time, filed a counterclaim against Jewell on July 16, 2003, asserting causes of action for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, defamation, intentional destruction of property, fraud, and negligence. Moser, also a shareholder, filed a motion to dismiss Jewell's complaint pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In response to Fletcher's counterclaim and Moser's motion to dismiss, Jewell filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that Moser had lost his license to practice law and was no longer a shareholder in JMFH and that Fletcher was also no longer a shareholder and, thus, neither party had standing to challenge the dissolution. The court entered an order on September 22, 2004, granting Jewell's motion for summary judgment as to the dissolution of JMFH. The trial court subsequently appointed Milas "Butch" Hale to serve as the receiver for JMFH pursuant to Ark.Code Ann. § 4-27-1432 (Repl.2001).
Following entry of the trial court's order with regard to dissolution, Holleman, the fourth shareholder of JMFH, sought to intervene in the proceeding in order to seek salaries and benefits owed to him pursuant to his employment agreement with JMFH. The trial court granted Holleman's motion to intervene. Appellants also sought to intervene in this case in order to assert claims against JMFH, but the trial court determined that their interests would be adequately protected and that it was not appropriate for creditors to intervene in a judicial-dissolution proceeding.
As the dissolution proceeded, the trial court held a hearing on November 8, 2005, to begin adjudicating claims and to take testimony on what assets belonged to the firm, as opposed to individual shareholders. Hale presented the court with a list of claims filed to date and the trial court announced that as long as claims had been filed within the time period established by the receiver, it would allow creditors to amend or supplement claims if needed. The trial court then proceeded to hear testimony and take evidence with regard to what assets belonged to JMFH and what assets belonged to certain individuals, including whether certain fees collected by Holleman after the dissolution proceeding began were fees that belonged to JMFH or to Holleman and Holleman & Associates.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the court instructed, the parties, including the creditors, to submit simultaneous briefs on the issues of what assets belong to JMFH and whether, under the receivership statutes, the shareholders had any standing to object to the receiver's recommendation regarding what claims should be accepted. With regard to the creditors, the trial court stated:
Well, let me just say this: What we're going to do, since this is a little bit of an unusual proceeding, is, I am going to make sure to the best of my ability that each of your respective clients feels like they had their day in court fully and completely and try my best to make an informed decision on that.
Following questions about possible objections to individual creditor's claims, the trial court further stated:
Well, we're not done with the claimants yet because you all haven't had a chance, either in the venues that you're in or here, so all issues are on the table with respect to your individual claims. I haven't made any decisions and didn't take...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jewell v. Fletcher
...P.A. (JMFH). The underlying facts that precipitated this lengthy litigation were set forth in detail by this court in Sims v. Fletcher, 368 Ark. 178, 243 S.W.3d 863 (2006), part of which can be summarized as follows: Jewell, a shareholder in JMFH, filed a complaint seeking judicial dissolut......
-
Sims v. Moser
...be denied. Appellants all filed timely notices of appeal. While the issues were previously presented to this court in Sims v. Fletcher, 368 Ark. 178, 243 S.W.3d 863 (2006), the appeal was dismissed because the order was not a final, appealable order due to Fletcher's outstanding counterclai......
-
Wilson v. Weiss
...of the parties at the circuit court level will result in a dismissal for failure to appeal a final order. See, e.g., Sims v. Fletcher, 368 Ark. 178, 243 S.W.3d 863 (2006) (holding that we are unable to address the merits of the appellants' arguments where we do not have before us a final, a......
-
Despain v. Bradburn, 07-714 (Ark. 2/7/2008)
...for failure to appeal a final order.See Ark. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Wilson v. Weiss, 368 Ark. 300, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2006); Sims v. Fletcher, 368 Ark. 178, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2006). Our court has been "resolute in its enforcement Rule 54(b) in order to assure that we only review final orders and do n......