Lade Thomas Conlee, Jr. v. Jennifer Conlee

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Lade Thomas CONLEE, Jr. v. Jennifer CONLEE  05­743  ___ S.W.3d ___  Supreme Court of Arkansas  Opinion delivered May 18, 2006  MOTIONS – MOTION TO DISMISS NOTICES OF APPEAL – MOTION DENIED. – Where the  appellant’s third and fourth notices of appeal were timely filed within the thirty days  of the orders from which he appealed, as required under Ark. R. App. P. – Civ. 4(a),  the supreme court concluded that appellant timely appealed the post­divorce decree  issues presented in the orders being appealed and denied the appellee’s motion to  dismiss, with directions to the parties that the divorce decree could not be disturbed  except to enforce its terms.  Motion  to  Dismiss  Appellant’s  Notices  of  Appeal  Dated  September  7,  2005,  and  September 16, 2005; motion denied.  Dodds, Kidd & Ryan, by:  Stephanie Chamberlin, for appellant.  Shepherd & Allred, by:  Allison R. Allred, for appellee.  PER  CURIAM.  On March 17, 2006, appellee, Jennifer Conlee (“Jennifer”), filed a ___________________________  PER CURIAM  ­  10  CONLEE v. CONLEE  Cite as 36_ Ark. ___ (2006)  Page 2  motion to dismiss the third and fourth notices of appeal filed by appellant, Lade Thomas  Conlee, Jr. (“Tom”).  Jennifer requests that we grant her motion and asks that we dismiss the  two notices of appeal dated September 7, 2005, and September 16, 2005, respectively.  A full recitation of the facts in this case is provided in Conlee v. Conlee, ___ Ark.  ___, ___ S.W.3d ___ (May 11, 2006).  On March 8, 2005, the circuit court entered a divorce  decree, and on March 18, 2005, Tom filed a notice of appeal.  On March 25, 2005, Tom,  who retained another attorney, filed a second notice of appeal.  The circuit court invalidated  the first notice of appeal and ruled that the second notice of appeal was timely.  On June 29,  2005, Tom filed the record, but our clerk refused to lodge the record, stating that the record  was due on June 16, 2005.  We reversed and dismissed the circuit court’s ruling, holding that  the record should have been filed by June 16, 2005, within ninety days of the first notice of  appeal under Rule 5(a).  Id.  On July 6, 2005, Tom filed a motion for rule on clerk, which  we denied on May 11, 2006.  The parties continued to litigate post­decree issues.  Tom filed a third notice of appeal  on  September  7,  2005,  appealing  a  September  2,  2005,  contempt  order  and  “any  other  contempt orders filed prior to September 2, 2005.”  There were two September 2, 2005,  orders.  In the first September 2, 2005, order, filed at 9:05 a.m., the circuit court ordered and  directed  Tom  to  appear  at  a  show­cause  hearing,  and  the  circuit  court  stated  that  Tom ___________________________  PER CURIAM  ­  10  CONLEE v. CONLEE  Cite as 36_ Ark. ___ (2006)  Page 3  “agreed to tender a check for the sum of $11,640.62 . . . representing partial payment for  certain obligations” as set forth in the divorce decree.  In the second September 2, 2005,  order,  filed  at  4:31  p.m.,  the  circuit  court  ruled  that  Tom  was  in  contempt  of  court  and  ordered him to be incarcerated for a period of seven days.  On September 16, 2005, Tom filed an amended notice of appeal, his fourth notice of  appeal,  which  appealed  an  order  of  clarification  entered  on  September  8,  2005.    In  the  September 8, 2005, order of clarification, the circuit court denied Tom’s motion to rescind  pick  up  order  and  body  attachment  and  found  that  he  had  failed  to  comply  with  three  conditions in the divorce decree. The circuit court reduced his sentence to seven days rather  than the fourteen days ordered in the divorce decree.  The court reserved ruling on Jennifer’s  motion for contempt and ordered Tom to sell his vehicle.  On November 30, 2005, Tom sought an order granting an extension of time to file the  record, and on December 1, 2005, the circuit court extended the time to January 31, 2006.  Tom tendered a supplemental record on January 31, 2006.  On February 3, 2006, he filed a  motion for stay and a motion to supplement the record, as well as a motion to correct the  supplemental record, and we denied both motions by letter order on February 23, 2006.  In the present case, Tom’s third and fourth notices of appeal were timely filed within  the thirty days of the September 2 and September 8 orders, as required under Ark. R. App. ___________________________  PER CURIAM  ­  10  CONLEE v. CONLEE  Cite as 36_ Ark. ___ (2006)  Page 4  P.–Civ. 4(a).  Rule 3(e) of the Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure–Civil provides that  a notice of appeal or cross­appeal “shall designate the judgment, decree, order or part thereof  appealed from . . . [.]” Id.  Orders not mentioned in a notice of appeal are not properly before  the appellate court.  Ark. R. App. P. – Civ. 3(e); see also Aka v. Jefferson Hosp. Ass'n, Inc.,  69 Ark. App. 395, 13 S.W.3d 224 (2000); Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Shipman, 25 Ark.  App. 247, 756 S.W.2d 930 (1988).  Here, the third notice of appeal designates the case number, “DR 2004­2590, together  with the transcript of all proceedings held on September 2, 2005,” and “any other contempt  hearings filed prior to September 2, 2005.”  There were two orders entered on September 2,  2005; however, the language designating “all proceedings held on September 2, 2005" is  sufficient to include both September 2 orders.  See Jasper v. Johnny’s Pizza, 305 Ark. 318,  807 S.W.2d 664 (1991).  Further, Tom timely filed his amended, or fourth, notice of appeal  and appeals the order of clarification entered on September 8, 2005, pursuant to Ark. R. Civ.  P.–Civ. 3(e).  The September 8, 2005, order contains rulings that relate back to the divorce  decree, as well as post­decree rulings.  Jennifer argues that the record is not timely filed.  From the third notice of appeal, the  record would have been due on December 6, 2005.  On December 1, 2005, the circuit court  entered  an  order  extending  the  time  to  file  the  record  to  January  31,  2006,  and  the ___________________________  PER CURIAM  ­  10  CONLEE v. CONLEE  Cite as 36_ Ark. ___ (2006)  Page 5  supplemental record was tendered on that date.  While the record indicated that the contempt  matter began as early as February 8, 2005, prior to the divorce decree, the timeliness of the  appeal was not raised in Jennifer’s motion.  We  conclude  that  Tom  timely  appealed  the  post­decree  issues  presented  in  the  September 2, 2005, and September 8, 2005, orders.  Matters settled in the March 8, 2005,  divorce decree may not be the subject of the appeal in this case.  See Conlee, supra.  Thus,  Jennifer’s motion is denied with directions to the parties that the March 8 divorce decree may  not be disturbed except to enforce its terms.  Motion denied. ___________________________  PER CURIAM  ­  10 

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.