Title: Tortorich v. Tortorich

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

Pam TORTORICH v. Tony
TORTORICH

95-332          ___ S.W.2d ___

   Supreme Court of Arkansas
  Opinion delivered April 15,
1996


1.   Civil procedure --
     dismissal of cause --
     pendency of another
     action between same
     parties arising out of
     same transaction or
     occurrence. -- Rule
     12(b)(8) of the Arkansas
     Rules of Civil Procedure
     provides that a cause may
     be dismissed because of
     the "pendency of another
     action between the same
     parties arising out of
     the same transaction or
     occurrence"; here, when
     appellee filed his
     complaint for absolute
     divorce in one county,
     there was pending in the
     court of appeals an
     appeal from another
     county, initiated by him,
     concerning not only the
     "same transaction or
     occurrence" but also
     three issues that were
     identical.

2.   Courts -- concurrent
     jurisdiction -- priority
     of jurisdiction. -- In
     the case of concurrent
     jurisdiction in different
     tribunals, the first to
     exercise jurisdiction
     rightfully acquires
     control to the exclusion
     of, and without the
     interference of, the
     other. 

3.   Courts -- jurisdiction --
     authority of court of
     competent jurisdiction. -
     - Where a case is brought
     in a court of competent
     jurisdiction, the
     authority and control of
     that court over the case
     continues until the
     matter is disposed of in
     the appellate court.

4.   Courts -- jurisdiction --
     county where initial
     action was filed was
     proper venue. -- Where
     the initial action filed
     in one county was still
     pending on appeal when
     the second suit was filed
     in another county, the
     first county was the
     proper venue, and the
     chancery court in the
     second county erred in
     refusing to dismiss the
     action filed in that
     court.


     Appeal from Saline
Chancery Court, Third Division;
Gary M. Arnold, Chancellor;
reversed and dismissed.
     Dodds, Kidd, Ryan & Moore,
by:  Greg Alagood, for
appellant.
     Hilburn, Calhoon, Harper,
Pruniski & Calhoun, Ltd., by: 
Sam Hilburn and Dorcy Kyle
Corbin, for appellee.

     Robert H. Dudley, Justice.April 15, 1996   *ADVREP2*





PAM TORTORICH,
                    APPELLANT,

V.

TONY TORTORICH,
                    APPELLEE.



95-332


APPEAL FROM THE SALINE COUNTY
CHANCERY COURT, THIRD DIVISION,
NO. E-94-290-3,
HON. GARY M. ARNOLD,
CHANCELLOR,




REVERSED AND DISMISSED.



                   Robert H. Dudley, Justice.


     The question in this case is whether two counties can
concurrently have venue of a divorce action.  The parties, Pam and
Tony Tortorich, were married in 1979 and have three children.  They
separated on September 17, 1992, and, at that time, both were
residents of Pulaski County.  Pam Tortorich filed an action for a
divorce from bed and board, or a limited divorce, in the Chancery
Court of Pulaski County.  Pulaski County was the county of proper
venue.  See Ark. Code Ann.  9-12-303 (Repl. 1993).  Tony Tortorich
filed a counterclaim for an absolute divorce.  On December 15,
1993, the Pulaski County Chancery Court awarded Pam a divorce from
bed and board, divided the marital property, and awarded alimony,
child support, witness fees, and attorney's fees.  The chancery
court denied and dismissed Tony's counterclaim for absolute
divorce.  The chancery court retained jurisdiction for further
orders.  Tony appealed and argued that the chancellor erred in
dividing the marital property and setting alimony, child support,
and fees.  He did not appeal from the dismissal of his counterclaim
for absolute divorce.  On June 28, 1995, the court of appeals
affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part.  It reversed a
major part of the valuation of marital property which, in turn,
substantially reduced the amount Pam would receive, and, as a
consequence, it remanded for the Pulaski County Chancery Court to
reconsider the amount of alimony Pam should receive.  Tortorich v.
Tortorich, 50 Ark. App. 114,