Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 323 

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION IV 

No. CV-16-963

ARTIE GREEN’S AUTO REPAIR &

BODY SHOP, INC., AND ARTHUR 

GREEN, JR. 

APPELLANTS

V.

PHILLIP JOHNSON 

APPELLEE

Opinion Delivered: May 17, 2017

APPEAL FROM THE SALINE

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. 63CV-13-640] 

HONORABLE GARY ARNOLD, 

JUDGE

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

KENNETH S. HIXSON, Judge

Appellants Artie Green’s Auto Repair and Body Shop, Inc., and Arthur Green, Jr., 

appeal after the Saline County Circuit Court denied their petition to declare Arkansas Code 

Annotated section 16-66-221 (Repl. 2005) unconstitutional. Appellants argue on appeal 

that the circuit court erred because section 16-66-221 intrudes on the Arkansas Supreme 

Court’s exclusive authority over pleading, practice, and procedure pursuant to amendment 

80 section 3 of the Arkansas Constitution. However, we dismiss this appeal without 

prejudice for lack of a final order. 

This case originates from a default judgment awarding appellee Phillip Johnson a total 

of $9,283.16 against appellants on March 4, 2014. After appellants failed to satisfy the 

judgment or prepare a schedule, verified by affidavit, of all their property pursuant to 

Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-66-221, appellee filed a motion to compel and to 

show cause. Appellee requested that the circuit court compel appellants to comply with the 
Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 323 

2 

statute, to show cause as to why sanctions should not be imposed, and to award appellee 

attorney’s fees and costs. The circuit court filed an order to show cause.

Appellants subsequently filed a petition to declare Arkansas Code Annotated section 

16-66-221 unconstitutional because it violates amendment 80 to the Arkansas Constitution 

in that it is a procedural matter in the exclusive purview of the Arkansas Supreme Court. 

After considering appellee’s response, oral arguments, and posthearing briefs regarding 

appellants’ petition, the circuit court filed an order denying appellants’ petition and declared 

section 16-66-221 constitutional.

2. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-66-221 satisfies the definition of substantive law in that it 

creates a right of information for a creditor, a corresponding duty for a judgment 

debtor to adhere to disclosure of the same, and as such it is a regulation of powers 

between parties to a lawsuit as it relates to property subject to execution by virtue of 

a final judgment.

3. The essence of the statute is to create a right and corresponding duty between 

parties, which is clearly under the realm of substantive law. In particular, the statute 

clearly “defines the specific rights or duties themselves,” articulated within the 

definition of substantive law. It is not a violation of the separation-of-powers 

doctrine or Amendment 80, and any procedural aspects of the statute is otherwise 

allowed for by Rule 81 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure.

4. IT IS THEREFORE CONSIDERED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND 

DECREED by this Court that Ark. Code Ann. § 16-66-201 is upheld as 

constitutional.

This appeal followed.

While no party has raised this issue, whether an order is final for appeal purposes is a 

jurisdictional question that this court will raise sua sponte. Hotfoot Logistics, LLC v. Shipping 

Point Mktg., Inc., 2012 Ark. 76. Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure–Civil 2(a)(1) (2016)

provides that an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment or decree entered by the 

circuit court. Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) (2016) provides that when more than 
Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 323 

3 

one claim for relief is presented in an action or when multiple parties are involved, an order 

that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the 

parties is not a final, appealable order. Brasfield v. Murray, 96 Ark. App. 207, 239 S.W.3d 

551 (2006). Rule 54(b) allows a circuit court, when it finds no just reason for delaying an 

appeal, to direct entry of a final judgment as to fewer than all the claims or parties by 

executing a certification of final judgment as it appears in Rule 54(b)(1). However, absent 

this required certification, any judgment, order, or other form of decision that adjudicates 

fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties shall not 

terminate the action. Brasfield, supra. No such certification was made in this case.

Here, the circuit court’s order specifically declared the statute in question 

constitutional. However, the order did not address or dispose of appellee’s pending motion 

to compel or to show cause. “The mere fact that the constitutionality of a law may be 

involved in the decision on a motion would not of itself render the decision on such motion 

a final order or judgment.” State v. Greenville Stone & Gravel Co., 122 Ark. 151, 155, 182 

S.W. 555, 556 (1916). In Thomas v. City of Fayetteville, 2012 Ark. 120, our supreme court 

dismissed an appeal for lack of a final order when a circuit court granted the City’s motion 

for order of immediate possession in an eminent domain case. In part, Thomas had argued 

that statutory authority for the condemnation violated both the federal and state 

constitutions. Id. Although the circuit court did not find merit in Thomas’s argument and 

granted the City’s petition, the circuit court did not consider the main issue of the amount 

of just compensation. Id. As such, our supreme court dismissed the appeal to avoid 

piecemeal litigation. Id.
Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 323 

4 

Additionally, in Tucker v. Lake View School District Number 25 of Phillips County, 323 

Ark. 693, 917 S.W.2d 530 (1996), our supreme court dismissed an appeal for lack of finality 

where the circuit court declared the school-funding system unconstitutional but did not 

consider the constitutionality of the individual elements of the system nor address Lake 

View’s requests for injunctive relief and mandamus. Id. Thus, our supreme court held that 

the requirements for finality had not been met. Id.

Finally, in Ellis v. Ellis, 2016 Ark. App. 411, 501 S.W.3d 387, the circuit court’s 

purported final order failed to address a pending motion for contempt. The circuit court 

had entered a show-cause order and even orally held that it was not finding Ellis in 

contempt; however, a written order after the court’s oral announcement from the bench 

was never entered. We held that a circuit court must dispose of all pending issues in writing, 

including motions for contempt, in the absence of a valid Rule 54(b) certificate. Id.; see also 

Canady v. Garrett, 2009 Ark. App. 882 (per curiam). Because the record we have before us 

does not reflect that the circuit court disposed of appellee’s pending motion, and because 

the circuit court’s order does not include a Rule 54(b) certificate, we lack jurisdiction over 

the instant appeal and dismiss this appeal without prejudice. 

 Dismissed without prejudice. 

 GRUBER, C.J., and KLAPPENBACH, J., agree. 

The Baxter Law Firm, by: J. Ray Baxter, for appellants.

Jurist Law Group, PLLC, by: J. Shane Cox, for appellee.