concurring. I agree that this case should be dismissed for lack of compliance with Ark. R. Civ. R 54(b) but only because the counterclaim by appellee City of Malvern prays for a declaratory judgment that appellants Maroney and Parker be required to build all of the roads in their new development in accordance with the City’s Master Street Plan. That cause of action appears to be separate and apart from the appellants’ complaint to open a public roadway, and the chancellor has subject matter jurisdiction to address this claim.
However, I disagree that the cross claims of AS&GC, Inc. have independent viability. Cross claims by definition arise out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the original action or counterclaim. Ark. R. Civ. P. 13(f). Because the trial judge has determined that he has no subject matter jurisdiction over the original action, it follows that jurisdiction is also lacking to decide the cross claims. To the extent a cross claim is alleged by AS&GC that raises matters outside the scope of the original action, I question its validity. In addition, the AS&GC counterclaim against the appellants appears to be directly related to their complaint to open a public road over the reserve strip. Again, the trial judge has recognized a lack of jurisdiction over this matter, and the counterclaim is not a separate claim.