{
  "id": 4016201,
  "name": "VIMY RIDGE MUNICIPAL WATER IMPROVEMENT DIST. NO. 139 and The Bank of New York v. J.A. RYLES, G.P. Ryles, Guy Maris, Whitwell, Inc., John Ryles, et al., Rylwell, LLC, Mark Wilcox, Land Commissioner",
  "name_abbreviation": "Vimy Ridge Municipal Water Improvement Dist. No. 139 v. Ryles",
  "decision_date": "2007-03-15",
  "docket_number": "06-1028",
  "first_page": "217",
  "last_page": "219",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "369 Ark. 217"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "253 S.W.3d 436"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "367 Ark. 348",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        3695802
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2006,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/367/0348-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "333 Ark. 247",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        703763
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1998,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/333/0247-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 292,
    "char_count": 4492,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.757,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.961721986493819e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5374469708465629
    },
    "sha256": "137b90d33ce7c672c9dd35aba7bcd082c36bac638c31d9a3f9f658b21e0b279f",
    "simhash": "1:daa850df9d982ad8",
    "word_count": 740
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:01:48.941240+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "VIMY RIDGE MUNICIPAL WATER IMPROVEMENT DIST. NO. 139 and The Bank of New York v. J.A. RYLES, G.P. Ryles, Guy Maris, Whitwell, Inc., John Ryles, et al., Rylwell, LLC, Mark Wilcox, Land Commissioner"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Jim Hannah, Chief Justice.\nAppellants Vimy Ridge Municipal Water Improvement District 139 and The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A. (collectively referred to as Vimy Ridge) appeal the order of the Pulaski County Circuit Court granting summary judgment in favor of appellees J.A. Ryles; Rylwell LLC; John Ryles; Whitwell Inc.; and Mark Wilcox, Land Commissioner (collectively referred to as the Ryles appellees). Vimy Ridge argues that the circuit court erred in concluding that the special taxes of the district became delinquent on June 1 and granting the Ryles appellees\u2019 motion for summary judgment as a matter of law.\nVimy Ridge filed a complaint for foreclosure against several defendants, including the Ryles appellees, 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 complaint sought payment of the delinquent taxes for the tax years 2001, 2002, and 2003.\nVimy Ridge filed separate motions for summary judgments against J.A. Ryles, Rylwell, Whitwell, and John Ryles. The Ryles appellees answered and also filed motions for summary judgment, admitting that special taxes were delinquent for tax years 2001, 2002, and 2003. They paid the 2002 and 2003 delinquent special taxes and asserted that Vimy Ridge\u2019s complaint for foreclosure as to the 2001 delinquent special taxes was barred by the three-year statute of limitations.\nThe circuit court held a hearing on the summary-judgment motion on February 7, 2006, and granted the Ryles appellees\u2019 motion for summary judgment and dismissed with prejudice \u201cany and all other claims, cross-claims, or counter claims.\u201d In addition, the circuit court concluded that the Land Commissioner\u2019s \u201cinterest is not affected by this proceeding.\u201d\nWhile final judgment as to the Ryles appellees is clear, the original complaint listed several defendants. Upon review of the record, we note that the record is silent with respect to any disposition as to G.P. Ryles, Guy Maris, John Doe(s), and Jane Doe(s).\nRule 54(b) of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure provides in pertinent part:\n[A]ny judgment, order, or other form of decision, however designated, which adjudicates fewer than all of 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 the parties.\nArk. R. Civ. P. 54(b)(2) (2006).\nWe have made it clear that the failure to comply with Rule 54(b) and adjudicate all claims against all parties is jurisdictional and renders the matter not final for purposes of appeal. See Hodges v. Huckabee, 333 Ark. 247, 968 S.W.2d 619 (1998). A summary-judgment order is not a final, appealable order where the order does not dispose of the complaints against all of the defendants. See id. Further, we have specifically held that where John Doe claims have not been determined, dismissal on the basis of Rule 54(b) is appropriate. See Roe v. Ark. Dep\u2019t of Correction, 367 Ark. 348, 240 S.W.3d 127 (2006). Here, we are barred from considering this appeal under Rule 54(b) due to the lack of a final order since the claims against G.P. Ryles, Guy Maris, John Doe(s) and Jane Doe(s) may remain viable.\nIn addition to the Rule 54(b) problem, we note that Vimy Ridge has failed to abstract the February 7, 2006 hearing before the circuit court on the summary-judgment motion. Vimy Ridge explains in its abstractors\u2019 notes that it did not abstract the hearing because there are no colloquies between the circuit court and counsel as are necessary to an understanding of the questions presented on appeal. We disagree. Accordingly, in any future appeal of this matter, the abstract should include the summary-judgment hearing, pursuant to Rule 4-2(a)(5) and (b)(3).\nDismissed without prejudice.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Jim Hannah, Chief Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Riable & Crabtree, by: Mark Riable; Friday, Eldredge & Clark, by: Larry W. Burks, for appellants.",
      "Hurley & Whitwell, PLLC, by: Stephen E. Whitwell, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "VIMY RIDGE MUNICIPAL WATER IMPROVEMENT DIST. NO. 139 and The Bank of New York v. J.A. RYLES, G.P. Ryles, Guy Maris, Whitwell, Inc., John Ryles, et al., Rylwell, LLC, Mark Wilcox, Land Commissioner\n06-1028\n253 S.W.3d 436\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered March 15, 2007\nRiable & Crabtree, by: Mark Riable; Friday, Eldredge & Clark, by: Larry W. Burks, for appellants.\nHurley & Whitwell, PLLC, by: Stephen E. Whitwell, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0217-01",
  "first_page_order": 241,
  "last_page_order": 243
}