Wilkins & Associates, Inc. v. Vimy Ridge Municipal Water Improvement District 139
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No.
06-831
WILKINS & ASSOCIATES, INC.,
APPELLANT,
VS.
VIMY RIDGE MUNICIPAL WATER
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 139,
APPELLEE,
Opinion Delivered
A P P E A L FR O M T H E P U L A S K I
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
NO. CV04-10681,
HON. MARION ANDREW HUMPHREY,
JUDGE,
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
PAUL E. DANIELSON, Associate Justice
Appellant Wilkins and Associates, Inc. (Wilkins), appeals the order of the Pulaski
County Circuit Court, granting summary judgment in favor of appellee Vimy Ridge
Municipal Water Improvement District 139 (Vimy Ridge). Wilkins’s sole point on appeal
is that the circuit court erred in granting Vimy Ridge’s motion for summary judgment
because the statute of limitations for collecting an assessment of special improvement district
taxes from 2001 had expired.
Vimy Ridge filed a complaint for foreclosure against several defendants, including
Wilkins, on October 1, 2004, claiming that the assessments (tax, penalty, and costs), in the
form of municipal improvement district taxes, were delinquent for certain parcels of land
located within the district. The original complaint sought payment of the delinquent taxes
from Wilkins for the tax years 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004.
On August 1, 2005, Vimy Ridge filed its separate motion for summary judgment as
to Wilkins, relying on the certified copy of the delinquent assessment against the lands
owned by Wilkins, as prepared by the Pulaski County tax collector. The circuit court held
a hearing on the summary-judgment motion on December 12, 2005. Wilkins originally did
not dispute that it had not paid the delinquent taxes on certain parcels of its property for the
years 2002, 2003, and 2004; therefore, on or about December 12, 2005, Wilkins paid the
amounts assessed fo those tax years 2002. However, the assessment for 2001 remained an
issue. The circuit court granted summary judgment on behalf of Vimy Ridge and issued a
foreclosure decree as to Wilkins on March 31, 2006.
While final judgment as to Wilkins is clear, the original complaint listed several
defendants. A review of the record reveals final judgments as to W.M. Bearden, Phillip
Glenn, Lenon-Brewer, Ronny and Rebecca Patterson, Charles Shaw, and Edward Sumers;
however, the record is silent with respect to any disposition as to Coy Dean, Mark Wilcox,
John Doe(s), and Jane Doe(s).
Rule 54(b) of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure provides in pertinent part:
[A]ny judgment, order, or other form of decision, however designated, which
adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than
all the parties shall not terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties,
and the judgment, order, or other form of decision is subject to revision at any
time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and
liabilities of all of the parties.
-2-
06-831
Ark. R. Civ. P. 54(b)(2) (2006).
We are barred from considering this appeal under Rule 54(b) due to the lack of a final
order since the claims against multiple parties may remain viable. Although this issue was
not raised by either party, the question of whether an order is final and appealable is a
jurisdictional question that this court will raise sua sponte. See Roe v. Ark. Dep’t of
Correction, ___ Ark. ___, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Sept. 28, 2006). This court has specifically held
that where John Doe claims have not been determined, dismissal on the basis of Rule 54(b)
is appropriate. See id. Accordingly, we hold that the order from which Wilkins appeals is not
a final appealable order, and the appeal must be dismissed.
In addition to the Rule 54(b) problem, the addendum prepared by the appellant
appears to be deficient as it does not contain a copy of the city ordinance that is mandated
by Arkansas Code Annotated § 14-90-801 (Repl. 1998) to provide for the payment of
assessments. We have previously required that an appellant provide relevant city ordinances
in his addendum. See Vanderpool v. Pace, 350 Ark. 460, 87 S.W.3d 796 (2002). Arkansas
Supreme Court Rule 4-2(b)(3) (2006) provides that this court may address a deficiency at any
time if an abstract or an addendum is deficient such that we cannot reach the merits of the
case.
Dismissed without prejudice.
-3-
06-831
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.