Opinion ID: 1652093
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Attorney's Fees, Costs, and Interest

Text: The notice of appeal was timely to raise the issues under the November 1, 2002, order. The November 1, 2002, order granted an award of attorney's fees and costs. Thus, issues of alleged error in deciding the motion for fees and costs could be raised by Stacks on appeal. However, the points on appeal stated by Stacks in her opening brief are: 1. The trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Appellee Leon Marks because there were material questions of fact to be resolved, with regard to both the complaint and the counterclaim. ... 2. Appellee's contingent fee agreement is illegal and unenforceable because it violates federal ERISA law and Arkansas statutes, therefore the ruling of the trial court granting summary judgment should be reversed and this case should be remanded for trial. ... The post-trial motion for fees, costs, and interest, sought fees, costs, and interest arising from litigation of the suit by Marks against Stacks and had nothing to do with the alleged illegal contract at issue in the underlying lawsuit. The issue of the post-trial motion for fees and costs is first raised by Marks in his appellee's brief. Stacks does not discuss the post-trial motion for attorney's fees, costs, and interest, except in her reply brief in response to Marks's brief. In Williams v. City of Fayetteville, 348 Ark. 768, 76 S.W.3d 235 (2002), we affirmed the decision of the trial court on an issue raised first in the appellee's brief: There are other arguments that arise in the appellees' brief and in the reply brief. They will not be considered. Any alleged assignments of error must be argued in the original brief. Jordan v. State, 323 Ark. 628, 917 S.W.2d 164 (1996); Commonwealth Pub. Serv. Co. v. Lindsay, 139 Ark. 283, 214 S.W. 9 (1919). Williams, 348 Ark. at 778, 76 S.W.3d 235. Thus, we will not consider any issues arising from the post-trial motion for fees and costs. This court lacks jurisdiction to address the stated points on appeal due to the lack of a timely notice of appeal on the summary judgment, and Stacks fails to provide argument on the points that she could appeal. The motion to dismiss is granted, and the remainder of the case is affirmed.