Case Name: LAWRENCE BROTHERS, INC. v. R.J. "BOB" JONES EXCAVATING CONTRACTOR, INC.
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Arkansas
Decision Date: 1994-10-17
Citations: 318 Ark. 328
Docket Number: 94-805
Parties: LAWRENCE BROTHERS, INC. v. R.J. “BOB” JONES EXCAVATING CONTRACTOR, INC.
Judges: Brown, J., dissents.
Reporter: Arkansas Reports
Volume: 318
Pages: 328–334

Head Matter:
LAWRENCE BROTHERS, INC. v. R.J. “BOB” JONES EXCAVATING CONTRACTOR, INC.
94-805
884 S.W.2d 620
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Opinion delivered October 17, 1994
Hilburn, Calhoon, Harper, Pruniski & Calhoon, Ltd., by: Carrold E. Ray, for appellant.
Stanley D. Rauls, for appellant.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The appellee, R.J. "Bob" Jones Excavating Contractor, Inc. ("Jones"), moves to dismiss the appeal of the appellant, Lawrence Brothers, Inc. ("Lawrence Brothers"), the defendant below. Jones contends that Lawrence Brothers failed to file a timely notice of appeal and that, as a result, this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter. We agree and therefore grant the motion to dismiss.
This case entailed a breach of contract action in which a jury awarded Jones $110,115.50 in compensatory damages. Judgment was entered on March 29, 1994. On April 6, 1994, Lawrence Brothers filed a motion for judgment n.o.v. and, alternatively, for a new trial on damages, requesting that the trial court enter judgment for $65,317.18.
A hearing was held on the post-trial motions on April 11, 1994, at which time the court verbally denied them, directing the attorney for Jones to "give me just a short order, just denying the motions on this." On April 13, 1994, before the trial court entered its order of record on the post-trial motions, Lawrence Brothers filed a notice of appeal, followed, on the same day, by an amended notice of appeal. Ten minutes later, once again on the same day, the trial court entered its order denying the j.n.o.v. motion. The following is a breakdown of the relevant filing dates and times:
(1) March 29. 1994 — judgment entered in favor of Jones.
(2) April 6. 1994 — j.n.o.v. motion filed by Lawrence Brothers.
(3) April 11. 1994 — hearing on post-trial motions and verbal denial of post-trial motions.
(4) April 13. 1994. 9:07 a.m. — notice of appeal filed by Lawrence Brothers.
(5) April 13. 1994. 4:11 p.m. — amended notice of appeal filed by Lawrence Brothers.
(6) April 13. 1994. 4:21 p.m. — order denying the j.n.o.v. motion entered by trial court.
Under Ark. R. App. R 4(c), the time for filing a notice of appeal is modified in the event a post-trial motion is filed. A notice of appeal filed prior to the disposition of a post-trial motion has no effect, and a new notice of appeal must be filed within the prescribed time dated from the entry of the order dealing with the post-trial motion or from the expiration of the thirty days allowed in the absence of a ruling.
Jones persuasively cites Kimble v. Gray, 313 Ark. 373, 853 S.W.2d 890 (1993), as authority for its position that Lawrence Brothers' notice of appeal had no effect. That per curiam opinion affirmed an Arkansas Court of Appeals decision which held that, because the petitioner had filed her notice of appeal one day early, her notice of appeal had no effect under Ark. R. App. P. 4(c). See Kimble v. Gray, 40 Ark. App. 196, 842 S.W.2d 473 (1992). The court of appeals ruled, in Kimble, that the filing of a notice of appeal on the thirtieth day after a post-trial motion was filed was untimely and ineffective. In so doing, the appellate court relied on both the language of Ark. R. App. P. 4(c) ("A new notice of appeal must be filed within the prescribed time measured from the entry of the order disposing of the motion or from the expiration of the thirty-day period") and the notes supplied by the reporter ("If . an order granting or denying the motion is acted upon within the thirty-day period, the time for filing the notice of appeal begins to run upon entry of the order"):
[T]he wording of the rule, and the reporter's notes, make clear that when the trial court rules on the post-trial motion, a notice of appeal is timely when filed "upon entry" of that order. When the trial court fails to rule on the post-trial motion, the trial court retains jurisdiction of the matter until "the end," or "expiration," of the thirtieth day.
40 Ark. App. at 198, 842 S.W.2d at 474. This court affirmed the dismissal of appeal, noting simply that the appellate court's per curiam "succinctly sets out the court's authority for dismissing Kimble's appeal. Because we agree with the court of appeals' per curiam and ruling, we merely reaffirm its decision." 313 Ark. at 373-74, 853 S.W.2d at 890.
The Kimble decision is dispositive of the present matter. Measuring as we must, under Ark. R. App. P. 4(c), from the time of the trial court's entry of its order, we hold that Lawrence Brothers' filing of its notice of appeal on the afternoon of April 13 was untimely and ineffective.
The motion to dismiss the appeal is granted.
Brown, J., dissents.
Corbin, J., not participating.