Court Opinion

ID: 9677966
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:07:12.420695+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:00.666102
License: Public Domain

ANNABELLE Clinton Imber, Justice, dissenting. I disagree tireversing cdismissing e, case without prejudice. In short, I would affirm the chancellor because the point this court reverses on is that the chancellor erred by failing to join the record owner of the fifteen-foot disputed strip of land. First, there is only one brief filed in the case and it does not argue the necessary-party issue on appeal; nor can I locate in the record that this necessary-party issue was ever presented to the trial court. I am unaware of any legal authority that gives this court authority to raise a necessary-party issue for the first time on appeal. Indeed, the majority opinion recognizes this fundamental constraint that governs appellate review when it attempts to frame the necessary-party issue under the rubric of subject-matter jurisdiction. Unfortunately, the subject matter is not the quieting of title, which is merely a remedy. Cash v. Citizens Bank of Tillar, 277 Ark. 449, 642 S.W.2d 318 (1982). The subject matter is the land, which clearly lies within the jurisdiction of the Conway County Chancery Court. Id. Consequendy, I must disagree with the majority’s misguided assertion that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the rights to the land. Finally, notwithstanding the majority opinion’s suggestion to the contrary, the trial court’s decree and amended decree are final orders pursuant to Ark. R. App. P — Civ. 2. The trial court’s orders in this case dismiss the parties from the court and conclude their rights, if any, to the subject matter in controversy — the fifteen-foot strip of land. To the extent that the parties had knowledge of any prior record owners and did not join them as defendants in this case, as required by Ark. Code Ann. § 18-60-502 (1987), the prior record owners may bring suit to set aside the decree for fundamental errors such as fraud or lack of jurisdiction which would render the decree void ah initio. Welch v. Burton, 221 Ark. 173, 252 S.W.2d 411 (1952).1  For these reasons, I respectfully dissent. Smith, J., joins in this dissent.   It should be noted that each party averred that no other persons claim any interest in the fifteen-foot strip. Moreover, the surveyor’s investigation failed to disclose anyone with record title to the fifteen-foot strip.