Ian Snyder et al. v. Fairfield Bay Community Club, Inc. et al.

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Not for publication  Judge Josephine Linker Hart  DIVISION III  CA07­303  December 5, 2007  IAN SNYDER, et al.  APPELLANTS  AN APPEAL FROM VAN BUREN COUNTY  CIRCUIT COURT  [No. CV­06­97]  v.  FAIRFIELD BAY COMMUNITY  CLUB, INC., et al.  APPELLEES  HONORABLE CHARLES CLAWSON,  CIRCUIT JUDGE  DISMISSED  Appellants  Ian  Snyder,  president  of  the  Cliffside  Condominium  Association,  and  Donald  Dickey,  president  of  the  Tennis  Chalet  Condominium  Association,  filed  this  declaratory­judgment action against appellees Fairfield Bay Community Club, Inc., its board  of  directors  (“the  club”),  and  Bayview  Properties  Limited  Partnership.  The  circuit  court  granted summary judgment to the club. We must dismiss this appeal from that judgment for  lack of a final, appealable order.  The club gave Bayview an option to purchase real property for the construction of a  hotel. In their complaint, appellants challenged the board’s actions as ultra vires and alleged  that  the  hotel  would  significantly  alter  the  club’s  character  and  adversely  affect  nearby  property owners. The club responded that the contract could not be challenged as ultra vires  because Bayview, a third party, had acquired a legally enforceable right to build the hotel. Bayview did not file an answer. After the club moved for summary judgment, appellants  amended their complaint to aver that Bayview had been dissolved. Again, Bayview did not  respond. After a hearing, the trial court granted the club’s motion for summary judgment,  holding that the board’s actions could not be challenged as ultra vires. Appellants then filed  this appeal.  In order to discourage piecemeal litigation, an appeal may be taken only from a final  judgment or decree, with certain limited exceptions. See Ark. R. App. P.–Civil 2(a); Ark. R.  Civ. P. 54(b). The issue of finality is a jurisdictional one that this court is required to raise  on its own, even if the parties do not. See Strack v. Capital Servs. Group, Inc., 87 Ark. App.  202, 189 S.W.3d 484 (2004). Under Rule 54(b), an order is not final if it adjudicates fewer  than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties. Wilson v. Weiss,  368 Ark. 300, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2006). This is true even when the remaining defendant has  not responded to the complaint. Id.  Here, although the club has been dismissed by way of summary judgment, Bayview  has not. An order granting summary judgment to some but less than all defendants is not a  final,  appealable  order.  Chapman  v.  Wal­Mart  Stores,  Inc.,  351  Ark.  1,  89  S.W.3d  906  (2002). Rule 54(b) allows a trial court, when it finds no just reason for delaying an appeal,  to direct entry of a final judgment as to fewer than all the claims or parties by executing a  certification of final judgment as it appears in Rule 54(b)(1). The circuit court, however, did  not enter such a certificate in this case. Thus, until Bayview is actually dismissed, the action  against it is not final, and we have no choice but to dismiss this appeal without prejudice. 2  Appeal dismissed.  GLADWIN and GRIFFEN, JJ., agree. 3 

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.