Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 197
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
No. CV-16-227
Opinion Delivered: March 29, 2017
AGILITY FINANCIAL CREDIT UNION
APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
V. FORT SMITH DISTRICT
[NO. 66FCV-15-162]
GAYLA LARGENT AND WESTERN
ARKANSAS TITLE SERVICES, LLC
APPELLEES HONORABLE JAMES O. COX,
JUDGE
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
MIKE MURPHY, Judge
Appellant Agility Financial Credit Union (Agility) appeals a December 2, 2015,
Sebastian County Circuit Court order vacating a foreign judgment it had registered in that
county against appellee, Gayla Largent. We cannot reach the merits because a claim of the
intervenor was left unaddressed, and this appeal is therefore premature. We dismiss without
prejudice.
Agility obtained a judgment against Largent in Shelby County, Tennessee, and
registered that judgment in Sebastian County, Arkansas, where Ms. Largent owned real
property. Ms. Largent initially moved to vacate the foreign judgment, alleging that the
affidavit accompanying it was not signed, and the circuit court granted the motion the same
day. Four days later, the court set aside its order vacating the judgment upon learning that
Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 197
the affidavit did, in fact, have all the appropriate signatures. It reinstated the foreign
judgment nunc pro tunc to its original filing date of February 23, 2015.
During that four-day period between when the judgment was vacated and
retroactively reinstated, Largent sold real property situated in Sebastian County to a third
person for roughly $58,000, and the closing was handled by Western Arkansas Title Services,
LLC (WATS).
Largent again moved to set aside the registration of the foreign judgment on July 28,
2015. This time, she argued, among other things, that the foreign judgment was not properly
registered because the copy of the foreign judgment had not been certified by the Shelby
County Circuit Clerk on its face as required by Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 44. Agility
then made demand upon WATS in the amount of the sales price of the real property, and
WATS was permitted to intervene and file a petition seeking a declaration that it “has no
duty to pay any sum over to [Agility]” on the basis that the copy of the foreign judgment
had not been properly certified in accordance with Rule 44. Agility responded, arguing that
the registration complied with the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgment Act and that
the court was required by the United States Constitution to give full faith and credit to the
foreign judgment.
The court ultimately ruled in Largent’s favor, finding that, to be properly
authenticated, a foreign judgment must be “attested or certified to be a true copy of the
original document on file with the official custodian of record.” That is to say that, even if
a foreign judgment complies with the language of Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-66-
2
Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 197
602 and United States Code Annotated section 1738, if it does not strictly comply with
Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 44, it is deficient for purposes of registration in this state.
Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure–Civil 2(a)(1) (2016) provides that an appeal
may be taken only from a final judgment or decree entered by the circuit court. While no
party has raised this issue, whether an order is final for appeal purposes is a jurisdictional
question that this court will raise sua sponte. Miracle Kids Success Acad., Inc. v. Maurras, 2016
Ark. App. 445, at 2–3, 503 S.W.3d 94, 95. Agility appeals and asserts that the court erred
in setting aside the registration of the foreign judgment; however, the orders entered only
address Largent and her claims. WATS’s petition to intervene, in which it sought declaratory
relief, is not addressed in any orders in either the addendum or the record. When more than
one claim for relief is presented in an action or when multiple parties are involved, and
absent a certification of final judgment, an order that adjudicates fewer than all the claims
or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties is not a final, appealable order. Ark.
R. Civ. P. 54(b); Miracle Kids Success Acad., 2016 Ark. App. 445, at 2–3, 503 S.W.3d at 95.
Because the intervenor’s claim was left unresolved, the order from which Agility
appeals is not final. We dismiss.
Dismissed without prejudice.
GLADWIN and HARRISON, JJ., agree.
Pinnacle Law Firm, PLLC, by: Matthew D. Campbell, for appellant.
Hayes, Johnson & Conley, PLLC, by: Christopher B. Conley, for appellee Gayla Largent.
Walters, Gaston, Allison & Parker, by: Troy Gaston, for appellee Western Arkansas Title
Services.
3