Court Opinion

ID: 9898834
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-15 15:04:01.682654+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:35.029943
License: Public Domain

Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 525
                    ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
                                        DIVISION I
                                       No. CV-22-724

GABRIEL LONDON
                                                 Opinion Delivered November 15, 2023
                                APPELLANT

                                                 APPEAL FROM THE GARLAND
V.                                               COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
                                                 [NO. 26DR-21-676]

JESSICA SAUERWIN                            HONORABLE LYNN WILLIAMS,
                                   APPELLEE JUDGE

                                                 APPEAL DISMISSED

                               ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Judge

        This is an appeal from an August 12, 2022 order that, despite continuing to

 characterize the parties’ custody arrangement as “joint custody,” substantially changed the

 amount of time the parties will have with their minor child. 1 Because we lack jurisdiction,

 we dismiss the appeal.

                                I. Facts and Procedural History

        Gabriel London and Jessica Sauerwin were never married, but MC was born to Jessica

 on October 9, 2015, in Sallisaw, Oklahoma. On July 12, 2017, Gabriel filed the first

 paternity action in Conway County, Arkansas, to establish paternity and joint custody, but

        1
        There was also a contempt motion before the trial court, but that motion was denied,
 and there is no cross-appeal on that issue.
that action was dismissed on March 15, 2018, pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure

4(i) for lack of service prior to any answer or counterclaim.

       Jessica filed a second paternity action, also in Conway County, on April 23, 2018. It

is undisputed that the circuit clerk did not assign a new case number in this second paternity

suit after the first suit’s dismissal as required by Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 3(c). See

also Burnham v. Price, 2018 Ark. App. 410, at 4, 558 S.W.3d 402, 404. The caption of the

second paternity action retained Gabriel as the plaintiff and Jessica as the defendant as well

as the same case number as the dismissed first action; Jessica petitioned for paternity and

primary custody with limited visitation for Gabriel.

       On August 14, Gabriel answered and counterclaimed for primary custody, to which

Jessica filed an answer on August 16, admitting paternity but denying that Gabriel should

have primary custody.

       After a hearing held on November 30, the trial court issued a judgment of paternity

dated February 4, 2019, that approved the parties’ settlement to share true joint legal and

physical custody with a weekly exchange. Jessica was designated as primary medical custodian

for the purpose of making medical decisions. The judgment made no decision on where MC

would attend school.

       On July 27, 2021, Gabriel filed a motion to modify certain child custody, visitation,

and support orders contained within the February 4, 2019 judgment of paternity, alleging a

material change of circumstances and addressing the best interest of MC.

                                               2
       On July 29, Jessica also filed a petition for change of custody and contempt along

with a motion to transfer jurisdiction of the case from Conway County to Garland County.

She alleged she was living in Garland County, Gabriel was living in Faulkner County, and

there was no remaining connection to Conway County.

       Gabriel responded to Jessica’s petition on August 12, asserting that her volitional

choice to relocate some distance away is what caused the breakdown in the joint-custody

arrangement. The following day, Jessica filed a petition for an emergency hearing.

       An order transferring the case to Garland County was entered on August 18.

       A temporary hearing was held on October 5 on the issue of where MC would attend

kindergarten. Gabriel and Jessica consented to a temporary order that allowed MC to attend

St. John’s Catholic Church School on Jessica’s week of custody and Nemo Vista School on

Gabriel’s week.

       After a failed attempt at mediation, the final hearing took place on August 11, after

which the trial court issued its final order on August 12. The order includes a specific finding

that the original case was dismissed for failure of service on March 15, 2018, and that on

April 23, Jessica refiled the paternity action in the same case. The final order also states that

the parties’ new relocations are not sufficient to trigger a substantial change in circumstances

to change custody from joint custody but that they did, however, make the then-existing

joint-custody arrangement unworkable and not in MC’s best interest. The trial court then

made a finding that it is in the best interest of MC to attend St. John’s Catholic Church

School and, if she became ineligible to do so, to be enrolled at the appropriate public school

                                               3
in Garland County. The order then states that is in MC’s best interest for the joint-custody

schedule to include certain provisions related to holiday time between the parties, logistics

of visitation, and certain child-support provisions. Finally, the order denies Jessica’s motion

for contempt against Gabriel.

        On September 8, 2022, Gabriel filed a timely notice of appeal from the August 12

order, and this appeal followed.

        In 2011, Rule 3 of our rules of civil procedure was amended to provide in pertinent

part:

            (c) The clerk shall assign a new case number and charge a new filing fee for the filing
        of any case that is refiled after having been dismissed.

Ark. R. Civ. P. 3(c) (emphasis added). Under the amended Rule 3, a new case number is

mandatory in a case that is refiled after having been dismissed. It is undisputed that the

circuit clerk failed to issue a new case number in Jessica’s petition that was filed after

Gabriel’s initial action had been dismissed.

        In Burnham, 2018 Ark. App. 410, 558 S.W.3d 402, we held that an action is not

commenced for purposes of the savings statute if it is refiled under the same number. While

we acknowledged that this court does not have the authority to overrule the supreme court’s

opinion in Tucker v. Sullivant, 2010 Ark. 170, 370 S.W.3d 812 (decided a year prior to the

amendment to Rule 3 and held that the appellants’ filing of a complaint under the same

docket number as a previously nonsuited case constituted the commencement of a new

                                                 4
action for purposes of the savings statute), we concluded that the amended Rule 3 effectively

overrules Tucker and controlled in that case.

       In the case before us, the circuit court erred in allowing Jessica’s new paternity action

to proceed without following the requirements of amended Rule 3(c). As a result, we hold

that any resulting orders entered under the original case number are void; accordingly,

Gabriel’s appeal from the August 12, 2022 order must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

       Appeal dismissed.

       THYER and MURPHY, JJ., agree.

       Cullen & Co., PLLC, by: Tim Cullen, for appellant.

       Robert S. Tschiemer, for appellee.

                                                5