{
  "id": 6142057,
  "name": "Shanie Furrow PEREZ v. Craig FURROW",
  "name_abbreviation": "Perez v. Furrow",
  "decision_date": "2006-06-14",
  "docket_number": "CA 05-1253",
  "first_page": "333",
  "last_page": "335",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "95 Ark. App. 333"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "237 S.W.3d 109"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "347 Ark. 485",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        683302
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 2002,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/347/0485-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "337 Ark. 193",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1241013
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1999,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/337/0193-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 246,
    "char_count": 3479,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.767,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.138363859351185e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4724368100225148
    },
    "sha256": "a5f1765b2cf6907f9313e06607d035b9e48a6ac5742866cdaafa254bc71ff694",
    "simhash": "1:06baafe58272db01",
    "word_count": 586
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:50:54.342319+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Hart and Griffen, JJ., agree."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Shanie Furrow PEREZ v. Craig FURROW"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "John Mauzy Pittman, Chief Judge.\nThe parties were divorced by a decree entered in April 2003. That decree awarded custody of the parties\u2019 children to appellant. Subsequendy, appellee moved for a change of custody based largely on alleged interference with visitation. After a July 7, 2005, hearing, the trial court granted the motion and awarded custody of the children to appellee, set minimal temporary child support pending more information regarding appellant\u2019s employment, and stated that visitation provisions and a final support award would be made in a subsequent order. On appeal, appellant argues that the order changing custody is not supported by the evidence and unfairly punishes her. Although neither party raised a jurisdictional issue based on the timeliness of the appeal, it is our duty to determine whether this court has jurisdiction. Haase v. Starnes, 337 Ark. 193, 987 S.W.2d 704 (1999). We must dismiss this appeal because appellant failed to properly invoke our jurisdiction by filing a timely notice of appeal.\nAppellant attempted to appeal from a written order changing custody entered July 7, 2005, that expressly directed the parties\u2019 attorneys to \u201cwork out the details of the visitation\u201d for inclusion in a subsequent order. She did so by filing a notice of appeal on August 16, 2005, from the \u201cOrder, as supplemented, awarding custody\u201d to appellee. Rule 2(d) of the Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure - Civil permits an appeal from any order that is final as to the issue of custody, regardless of whether the order resolves all other issues. Therefore, appellant could have appealed directly from the July 7 order under Rule 2(d) because it was final as to the award of custody. Ford v. Ford, 347 Ark. 485, 65 S.W.3d 432 (2002). However, appellant\u2019s notice of appeal, filed more than thirty days after the order changing custody, was untimely as to that order. See Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 4(a).\nAlthough the July 7 order was a final award of custody, it was only an intermediate order inasmuch as it did not dispose of all other issues in the case. Therefore, appellant also had the option to seek review of the custody issue by taking an appeal from a subsequent order, entered on November 2, 2005, in which the court decided visitation questions and finally set appellant\u2019s child-support obligation. Ford v. Ford, supra. However, appellant filed no notice of appeal from the November 2 order. Furthermore, while it is true that a notice of appeal filed after the circuit court announces a decision but before the entry of the order is treated as having been filed on the day the order was entered pursuant to Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 4(a), the circuit court did not announce its decision on the visitation issue or its final decision on child support either at the hearing or in its July 7 order, but instead reserved judgment. Because no decision on all of the issues was announced until the order of November 2, from which appellant filed no notice of appeal, and because the notice of appeal filed on August 16 was untimely as to the July 7 order, our jurisdiction has not been invoked, and we must therefore dismiss this appeal.\nAppeal dismissed.\nHart and Griffen, JJ., agree.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "John Mauzy Pittman, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Rice & Adams, by: Scott A. Scholl, for appellant.",
      "Hicks & Associates, P.A., by: Carol Ann Hicks, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Shanie Furrow PEREZ v. Craig FURROW\nCA 05-1253\n237 S.W.3d 109\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered June 14, 2006\n[Rehearing denied July 26, 2006.]\nRice & Adams, by: Scott A. Scholl, for appellant.\nHicks & Associates, P.A., by: Carol Ann Hicks, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0333-01",
  "first_page_order": 353,
  "last_page_order": 355
}