Vontifany Smith v. Sherwood Imports, Inc.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Not Designated for Publication
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION I
CA08-348
No.
VONTIFANY SMITH
Opinion Delivered
October 8, 2008
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
[NO. CV2007-4698]
V.
SHERWOOD IMPORTS, INC.
APPELLEE
HONORABLE TIM FOX, JUDGE
DISMISSED
LARRY D. VAUGHT, Judge
Appellant, Vontifany Smith, appeals from an order in favor of appellee, Sherwood
Imports, Inc. Because the order does not constitute a final judgment, we dismiss the appeal.
Smith bought a car from Sherwood Imports and financed part of the purchase price.
When she fell behind on payments, Sherwood repossessed the car. Sherwood then sued Smith,
claiming to have sold the car for $3500 and seeking a $6596.40 deficiency balance. Smith
answered that she was improperly notified of the sale and that the sale was not commercially
reasonable. The case was tried by the circuit court as fact-finder.
After trial, the court determined that Sherwood still owned the car and that no sale had
occurred. Consequently, the court granted Sherwood a judgment for $9646.40, plus other fees
and costs, but added the following:
Plaintiff [Sherwood] is ordered to sell the vehicle which is the subject of this lawsuit at
a public sale for the best price available and ordered to appropriately publish notice of
that sale along with notice to Defendant [Smith] and her attorney. The amount received as
the purchase price for that vehicle at this sale shall be deducted from the above judgment.
The balance of the judgment after giving credit for the proceeds from the sale and deducting the cost
of the sale shall be the final judgment and garnishment or execution may issue against
Defendant on that judgment.
(Emphasis added.)
Smith appeals from this order. However, it is not a final judgment. The amount of a final
judgment must be computed, as near as possible, in dollars and cents. See Morton v. Morton, 61
Ark. App. 161, 965 S.W.2d 809 (1998). See also Hernandez v. Hernandez, 371 Ark. 323, ___
S.W.3d ___ (2007); Office of Child Support Enforcement v. Oliver, 324 Ark. 447, 921 S.W.2d 602
(1996); Estate of Hastings v. Planters & Stockmen Bank, 296 Ark. 409, 757 S.W.2d 546 (1988);
Thomas v. McElroy, 243 Ark. 465, 420 S.W.2d 530 (1967). It is not sufficient that an order states
a formula by which damages may be calculated. See Villines v. Harris, 362 Ark. 393, 208 S.W.3d
763 (2005). The judgment should state the amount the defendant is required to pay. See Thomas,
supra.
Here, the amount Smith was required to pay Sherwood remained unresolved at the time
the above order was entered. See Oliver, supra. The amount could not be quantified or executed
upon until the car was sold. See Allen v. Allen, 99 Ark. App. 292, 259 S.W.3d 480 (2007)
(holding that a divorce decree was not final where it fixed one party’s marital interest at $40,000,
to be offset by the undetermined sale proceeds of other items). Therefore, the order was not a
final judgment, and this court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal. See McKinney v. Bishop, 369
Ark. 191, 252 S.W.3d 123 (2007). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal without prejudice. See id.
Dismissed.
R OBBINS and M ARSHALL, JJ., agree.
-2-
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.
