Stilley v. Fort Smith School Dist.

• Decision Date: 14 September 2006
• Docket Number: No. 05-666.,05-666.
• Citation: Stilley v. Fort Smith School Dist., 238 S.W.3d 902, 367 Ark. 193 (Ark. 2006)
• Parties: Oscar STILLEY, Appellant, v. FORT SMITH SCHOOL DISTRICT, University of Arkansas at Fort Smith and Jim Perry, et al., Appellees.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

238 S.W.3d 902

Oscar STILLEY, Appellant, v. FORT SMITH SCHOOL DISTRICT, University of Arkansas at Fort Smith and Jim Perry, et al., Appellees.

No. 05-666.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

September 14, 2006.

Rehearing Denied October 26, 2006.

Oscar Stilley, Fort Smith, Appellant, pro se.

James Mitchell Llewellyn Jr., Sidney Walton Maurras, Fort Smith, Counsel for Appellee.

JIM HANNAH, Chief Justice.

On October 4, 2002, the Sebastian County Circuit Court entered an order imposing Rule 11 sanctions upon appellant Oscar Stilley in favor of appellees University of Arkansas Fort Smith (UAFS) and the Fort Smith School District (FSSD). This court affirmed. See Parker v. Perry, 355 Ark. 97, 131 S.W.3d 338 (2003). Subsequently, UAFS and FSSD filed motions to enforce sanctions, alleging that Stilley had failed to comply with the circuit court's order. Hearings were held on the motions and, on September 22, 2004, the circuit court entered an order directing Stilley to provide certain information concerning his finances that he alleged prevented him from paying the sanctions.

In October 2004, UAFS and FSSD filed motions for contempt, alleging that Stilley had failed to comply with the September 22 order. Stilley responded to the motion for contempt and, on November 19, 2004 Stilley filed a motion for recusal. The circuit court denied the motion for recusal by order signed that same day and entered November 22, 2004.

The circuit court held a hearing on UAFS's and FSSD's motions for contempt, and judgment was entered on January 18, 2005, finding Stilley in contempt. On January 21, 2005, Stilley filed a pleading entitled "Submission of Documents Demonstrating the Court's Advocacy of Westark/UAFS." Then, on February 1, 2005, Stilley filed a "Motion to Amend Findings of Fact and Law and for Additional Specific Findings of Fact and Law Pursuant to Rule 52." The circuit court did not act upon the motion.

On appeal, Stilley argues: (1) that the circuit court erred in denying him a "competent court" at the trial court level and holding him in contempt without affording him a hearing upon his motion for recusal; (2) that he was denied due process when he was deprived of a competent court on appellate review in Parker v. Perry, supra, and is therefore still entitled to a rehearing before an Arkansas Supreme Court consisting of disinterested jurists; (3) that the circuit court erred in permitting appellees to reopen a case that had been closed by the mandate after an appeal, without a formal motion as required by Ark. R. Civ. P. 7(b); (4) that the circuit court erred in refusing to provide an attorney adequate notice and opportunity to defend on a specific charge of contempt; (5) that the circuit court erred in evading the requirements of due process for criminal contempt by couching a criminal contempt as a civil contempt, even though the sentence calls for a thirty-day incarceration, which the defendant cannot avoid by purging himself of any offensive conduct; (6) that the circuit court erred in incarcerating appellant for failure to pay a judgment under Rule 11, when there was neither a finding nor a rational basis for a finding that the failure to pay was occasioned by anything other than the inability to pay; and (7) that the circuit court erred in seizing 100% of appellant's receipts, with 50% to be returned from time to time.

Subsequent to Stilley's filing of his brief on appeal, appellees filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. We deny appellees' motion to dismiss. As to Stilley's arguments on appeal, we find no error and, accordingly, we affirm. Because this case involves matters previously heard by the supreme court and concerns matters of attorney discipline, our jurisdiction is pursuant to Ark. Sup.Ct. R. 1-2(a)(5), (7).

Motion to Dismiss Appeal

As an initial matter, we address the merits of appellees' motion to dismiss appeal. The order from which this appeal is taken was entered on January 18, 2005. On February 1, 2005, Stilley filed a motion to amend findings of fact and law and for additional specific findings of fact and law pursuant to Rule 52 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. The circuit court took no action on that motion, and pursuant to Rule 52(b)(1), it was deemed denied on March 3, 2005. Thereafter, Stilley filed his notice of appeal on March 28, 2005.

Appellees argue that, pursuant to Ark. R.App. P.-Civ. 4(a), since more than thirty days elapsed between January 18, 2005, the date of the entry of the order from which this appeal is taken, and March 28, 2005, the date of the filing of the notice of appeal, the instant appeal is not timely. Although Stilley filed a motion pursuant to Rule 52, appellees contend that the rule is not applicable to this case, and consequently, Stilley's notice of appeal was not timely filed and the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Rule 4(a) provides that a notice of appeal shall be filed within thirty days from the entry of the judgment, decree, or order appealed from. However, upon the timely filing in the circuit court of a motion to amend the court's findings of fact or to make additional findings under Rule 52(b), made no later than ten days after the entry of judgment, the time for filing the notice of appeal shall be extended for all parties. Ark. R.App. P.-Civ. 4(b). If the circuit court neither grants nor denies the motion within thirty days of its filing, the motion shall be deemed denied as of the thirtieth day, and the notice of appeal shall be filed within thirty days from that date. Id. Here, Stilley filed a Rule 52 motion on February 1, 2005, which was within ten days of the entry of the judgment on January 18, 2005.¹

Appellees' argument is not that Stilley failed to file a timely Rule 52 motion; rather, they argue that Rule 52 is inapplicable because pursuant to Rule 52(a), "Findings of fact and conclusions of law are unnecessary on decisions of motions under these rules." The order appealed from in this case resulted from appellees' filing of a motion for contempt. Appellees reason that since the findings of fact and conclusions of law are not required by the circumstances of this case, Stilley cannot use Rule 52 as a means for extending the time for appeal. We disagree. Notwithstanding the language in Rule 52 that makes findings of fact and conclusions of law unnecessary in decisions of motions, we have noted that, in some cases, it is the better practice for the circuit court to give an explanation of its decisions on motions. See Bratton v. Gunn, 300 Ark. 140, 777 S.W.2d 219 (1989). Moreover, there is no language in the rule that prohibits circuit courts from entering findings, nor is there a prohibition on requesting such findings.

Appellees also state that Rule 52 is inapplicable because it applies only to "judgments," and the January 18 order is not a judgment because it does not dismiss the parties from the court, discharge them from the action, or conclude their rights to the subject matter in controversy. In this case, the circuit court captioned the order as a "judgment." Even if it is not technically a judgment, this court reviews ordinary contempt proceedings under the rules and statutes pertaining to appeals. Johnson v. Johnson, 343 Ark. 186, 33 S.W.3d 492 (2000); Frolic Footwear, Inc. v. State, 284 Ark. 487, 683 S.W.2d 611 (1985). Appellees argue that, although a finding of contempt may be appealable under the proper circumstances, it is not converted into a "judgment" merely because it is appealable. We believe that a focus on the word "judgment" to deny a party the opportunity to request factual findings on an order of contempt would be elevating form over substance. In contempt cases, especially those such as the instant case where a party is facing potential incarceration, a party should be extended the opportunity to request findings from the circuit court.

Finally, appellees argue that Rule 52 is not applicable to this proceeding because its application is limited to pleadings of a "civil nature" by Rule 1 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure, and the order of January 18 is based on Stilley's refusal to comply with the circuit court's order of September 22, 2004, from which no appeal is pending, to provide it with certain information in connection with Rule 11 sanctions. Appellees state that the issue before the court in the instant case is the discipline of an attorney, and such a proceeding is not a civil proceeding; rather, it is a proceeding sui generis. We disagree. While the court has stated that disciplinary proceedings of attorneys are sui generis, we have not suggested that we intended for the term "disciplinary proceedings" to encompass any sanction the circuit court might impose. Rather, the term refers to proceedings before the Committee. See, e.g., Neal v. Matthews, 342 Ark. 566, 30 S.W.3d 92 (2000) (review of disbarment proceeding), Neal v. Hollingsworth, 338 Ark. 251, 992 S.W.2d 771 (1999) (same). See also Burnett v. Sup.Ct. Comm. on Prof'l Conduct, 359 Ark. 279, 197 S.W.3d 458 (2004) (noting that the Committee responded to a party's res judicata argument by stating that the Committee is not bound by the rules of the court and is not required to strictly adhere to the rules of evidence and the rules of civil procedure because attorney discipline proceedings are sui generis). In sum, we deny appellees' motion to dismiss appeal. We now turn to Stilley's arguments on appeal.

Motion for Recusal

On November 19, 2004, Stilley filed a motion to recuse. The same day, Stilley filed a motion to continue a contempt hearing set for November 23, 2004, and in that motion he asserted a right to a hearing on his motion to recuse. In the motion to recuse, Stilley alleged that Judge Marschewski had a "substantial, direct, pecuniary interest" in the outcome of the litigation, that he had "demonstrated a deep seated personal and deep seated bias and prejudice," and that Judge Marschewski denied a request...