{
  "id": 1869751,
  "name": "Don RAGAR v. HOOPER-BOND LIMITED PARTNERSHIP FUND III",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ragar v. Hooper-Bond Ltd. Partnership Fund III",
  "decision_date": "1987-09-14",
  "docket_number": "87-8",
  "first_page": "182",
  "last_page": "185",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "293 Ark. 182"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "735 S.W.2d 706"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "281 Ark. 342",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1742306
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/281/0342-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "282 Ark. 213",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1740762
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/282/0213-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "289 Ark. 152",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1875399
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/289/0152-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "290 Ark. 244",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1873792
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/290/0244-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 363,
    "char_count": 5953,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.878,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.6499763270962405e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6925716518607842
    },
    "sha256": "1438574ce30ccedfacd546a0a6e1623bdfbe65b6bea8b00970fbfe022882a5f5",
    "simhash": "1:331f40f448260a20",
    "word_count": 1011
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:33:58.592079+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Holt, C.J., not participating."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Don RAGAR v. HOOPER-BOND LIMITED PARTNERSHIP FUND III"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "David Newbern, Justice.\nThe appellant complains about a court order which is not final and thus not appealable. We must, therefore, dismiss the appeal.\nDon Ragar, the appellant, was a limited partner in the appellee Hooper-Bond Limited Partnership Fund III (\u201cthe Fund\u201d). Ragar, on behalf of himself and other limited partners, sued Hooper and Bond, who were the general partners in the Fund, for fraud and recovered a judgment for $150,000. The Fund was named as a plaintiff in that action, although the complaint characterized the action as derivative. [See Benton Window and Door Little Rock Division, Inc. v. Garrett, 290 Ark. 244, 718 S.W.2d 438 (1986).] We affirmed. Hooper v. Ragar, 289 Ark. 152, 711 S.W.2d 148 (1986).\nAfter the judgment was affirmed, a motion was filed in the circuit court on August 8,1986, asking guidance in disbursement of the judgment. The motion was filed jointly by David Hargis, the attorney who represented Ragar and the Fund in obtaining the judgment, and James Penick, III, attorney for Flake & Company, Inc., which had become the successor general partner in the Fund. In the motion, Hargis sought a fee of $55,462.50 for representation of the Fund. An additional $12,457.00 was sought for \u201cthe limited partnership\u2019s legal counsel,\u201d presumably now Penick, for work done for the Fund during the pendency of the appeal to reorganize the Fund and keep it in existence. The motion also noted that a precise accounting of all expenses and fees would be presented at a hearing before the court. The motion cited Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 65-559 (Repl. 1980) and its requirement that the court review and approve disbursements from the judgment.\nOn September 30, 1986, an order was entered substituting Gene O\u2019Daniel as attorney for Ragar because it was contemplated that Hargis would have to testify in justification of his fee. A hearing on the matter was set for October 6,1986. On October 2,1986, Ragar moved for a continuance on the basis that his wife, Christine Ragar, would be unavailable to testify on October 6, and he would be entitled to expenses resulting from her loss of time as a real estate agent which was caused by work done by her on Ragar\u2019s behalf in preparation of the case resulting in the judgment.\nThe record does not show that the continuance was expressly denied, but the hearing was held on October 6, 1986, and the court entered an order allowing the fee requested by Hargis as well as $2,853.77 in unpaid expenses as well as $16,810.75 representing expenses \u201cactually paid\u201d by Don Ragar. The order noted the objection of counsel for the Fund, presumably Penick, and noted that none of the limited partners present objected to the disbursement. The order provided:\nThe fund now held by David M. Hargis, in trust for the limited partnership, should have deducted from it these noted sums, and the remainder, plus accrued interest, should be transmitted to James Penick, III., attorney for Flake & Company, Inc., the general partner for the limited partnership, which is authorized hereby to use such fund for the benefit of the limited partnership; ....\nIn a final paragraph, the order stated:\nOther claims by Don Ragar, Christine Ragar, and any others to all or any part of such fund, or any other issues which must be resolved or which may be necessary in concluding this litigation, should be scheduled for further hearing according to the requirements of the court\u2019s docket.\nThe order was filed October 8, 1986.\nOn October 31, 1986, Ragar filed a motion seeking reimbursement of Christine Ragar\u2019s expenses from the judgment. On November 4,1986, he moved to prohibit Flake & Company, Inc., from further disbursing the money remaining in the judgment, claiming that a meeting of the Fund had been called \u201cfor the ostensible purpose of determining distribution\u201d of the judgment money which had been transferred to Penick. The Fund filed a response to the October 31 motion. There is nothing in the record to show that the court has ruled on any motion made after its order of October 6, 1986.\nThe appellant has stated four points for reversal, and the appellee has responded with six points for affirmance. It is impossible to follow the argument on these points, as neither party has complied with Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Rule 9(f) by subheading the argument to correspond with the points. However, we can tell Ragar\u2019s main allegation is that the court erred on October 6, 1986, by ordering the money transferred to the Fund before all the expenses had been considered. The answer to that argument is that the order is patently not a final one. It states that the money being transferred to the Fund is to be subject to further claims later to be determined by the court. The impetus for this appeal apparently is that Ragar fears Flake & Company, Inc. will disburse the money among the partners and there will be none left to reimburse the expenses he now alleges. That was the subject of the motion Ragar made on November 4, 1986. That motion, as far as the record before us shows, has not been ruled upon, although the Fund states in its brief that a final order of some sort has been entered and will be the subject of a further appeal which is now awaiting preparation of transcript.\nThe trial court\u2019s order transferring the money representing the remainder of the judgment from Hargis to the Fund is not a final order, as it contemplates a hearing on further expenses to which it may be subject. We will not reach the merits of an appeal if the order appealed from is not final. Fratesi v. Bond, 282 Ark. 213, 666 S.W.2d 712 (1984); Corning Bank v. Delta Rice Mills Inc., 281 Ark. 342, 663 S.W.2d 737 (1984).\nAppeal dismissed.\nHolt, C.J., not participating.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "David Newbern, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gene O\u2019Daniel and David Hodges, for appellant.",
      "Richard D. Taylor, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Don RAGAR v. HOOPER-BOND LIMITED PARTNERSHIP FUND III\n87-8\n735 S.W.2d 706\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered September 14, 1987\nGene O\u2019Daniel and David Hodges, for appellant.\nRichard D. Taylor, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0182-01",
  "first_page_order": 218,
  "last_page_order": 221
}