Case Name: FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY of ARKANSAS, INC. v. Willa May SUDRICK
Court: Arkansas Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Arkansas
Decision Date: 1995-04-19
Citations: 49 Ark. App. 84
Docket Number: CA 94-141
Parties: FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY of ARKANSAS, INC. v. Willa May SUDRICK
Judges: Cooper and Mayfield, JJ., dissent.
Reporter: Arkansas Appellate Reports
Volume: 49
Pages: 84–86

Head Matter:
FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY of ARKANSAS, INC. v. Willa May SUDRICK
CA 94-141
896 S.W.2d 452
Court of Appeals of Arkansas En Banc
Opinion delivered April 19, 1995
Kincade Law Office, by: Ronald P. Kincade and Osmon, Chism & Ethredge, P.A., by: Kerry D. Chism, for appellant.
J. Scott Davidson and David E. Miller, for appellee.

Opinion:
John Mauzy Pittman, Judge.
Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company of Arkansas, Inc., brings this appeal contending that the trial court erred in granting appellee's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. We conclude that the trial court's order granting the motion was entered at a time when the trial court had no jurisdiction or authority to so act, and we reverse and dismiss.
Appellee filed this action against appellant, her insurer, seeking to recover insurance proceeds on account of a fire loss. After a trial, the jury returned a verdict in which it found "for" appellee but awarded her no damages. On August 5,1993, the court entered its judgment in accordance with the jury verdict. On August 9, appellee filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial. On September 23, forty-five days after appellee s motion was filed, the trial court entered an order granting appellee's motion for judgment n.o.v. and awarding her a judgment against appellant for $24,487.62. On September 27, appellant filed its notice of appeal.
Appellee's August 9 motion for judgment n.o.v. or a new trial was timely filed within ten days of the August 5 judgment. Ark. R. Civ. P. 50(b), 59(b). However, because the trial court neither granted nor denied the motion within thirty days of its filing, the motion was deemed denied as of the thirtieth day, September 8, 1993. Ark. R. App. P. 4(b) and (c). The trial court's failure to act on appellee's motion within thirty days of its filing resulted, by operation of law, in that court's loss of jurisdiction to decide the motion. Therefore,, the September 23 order purporting to grant appellee's motion for judgment n.o.v. was void and of no effect. See Reis v. Yates, 313 Ark. 300, 854 S.W.2d 335 (1993); Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Ayres, 311 Ark. 212, 842 S.W.2d 853 (1992); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Isely, 308 Ark. 342, 823 S.W.2d 902 (1992); Phillips v. Jacobs, 305 Ark. 365, 807 S.W.2d 923 (1991); Deason v. Farmers and Merchants Bank, 299 Ark. 167, 771 S.W.2d 749 (1989).
Reversed and dismissed.
Cooper and Mayfield, JJ., dissent.
The notice of appeal states that appellant appeals from a judgment "entered on August 4, 1993." Actually, no judgment was entered on that date. The only judgment by which appellant was aggrieved was the September 23 judgment, and every argument appellant makes on appeal is directed at the September 23 judgment. Under these circumstances, we do not think that appellant's failure to designate the September 23 judgment in its notice of appeal is fatal to its appeal of that judgment. See Jasper v. Johnny's Pizza, 305 Ark. 318, 807 S.W.2d 644 (1991).