Office of Child Support Enforcement v. Perry
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 861
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II
CA10-660
No.
Opinion Delivered
December 15, 2010
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT
ENFORCEMENT
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE LINCOLN
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
[NO. E-94-96-4]
V.
HONORABLE LEON N. JAMISON,
JUDGE
FRANKLIN PERRY
APPELLEE
DISMISSED
WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge
Appellant Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) filed a motion for judgment
to collect over $14,000 1 in child-support arrears from appellee Franklin Perry on May 13,
2009. Perry filed a response on May 28, 2009, and he filed a motion for paternity testing on
June 11, 2009. OCSE filed its response on July 9, 2009, seeking to have Perry’s request
denied. A hearing on Perry’s motion took place on February 10, 2010. At the conclusion of
the hearing, the court made a finding that Perry was entitled to testing. The order was entered
on April 19, 2010. The order reserved OCSE’s motion for judgment of arrears pending the
1
A default judgment of paternity was entered on January 26, 1995, directing Perry to
pay weekly child support in the amount of $32.50. OCSE alleged that Perry never made any
support payments.
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 861
outcome of the test. OCSE filed a notice of appeal on April 22, 2010.2 OCSE argues on
appeal that the trial court erred by ordering genetic testing pursuant to Arkansas Code
Annotated section 9-10-115(e)(1)(A) “because the plain language of the statute and the
legislative intent of the statute reveal that a test can only be requested during the period of
time that the defendant is required to pay current child support, which expires upon
emancipation.” 3
OCSE’s appeal must be dismissed for lack of a final, appealable order. Although OCSE
attempted to dispose of its motion for judgment against Perry in its amended notice of appeal,
there was no order entered by the trial court disposing of the motion. The paternity order
entered in April 2010 specifically stated that the court was reserving OCSE’s motion for
judgment pending the outcome of Perry’s paternity test.
Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure—Civ. 2(a)4 permits appeals only from final
orders of a trial court. An order must be final for the appellate court to have jurisdiction; thus
we may consider this issue even though the parties have not raised it.5 Pursuant to Rule 54(b) 6
of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure, an order in which fewer than all claims are
2
It filed an amended notice of appeal in June 2010 stating that it was abandoning its
motion for judgment of arrears.
3
The child turned eighteen years old on November 30, 2005.
4
(2010).
5
Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Bank v. Austin, 2010 Ark. App. 753, --- S.W.3d ---.
6
(2010).
-2-
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 861
adjudicated is not an appealable order unless the trial court expressly directs the entry of a final
judgment to claims disposed of and expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.7
In the instant case, the trial court reserved the issue of arrears until after Perry had
undergone paternity testing. Additionally, there was no Rule 54(b) certificate included that
would allow for an immediate appeal despite the unresolved claim. Therefore, we must
dismiss for lack of a final order.8
Dismissed without prejudice.
R OBBINS and G RUBER, JJ., agree.
7
Id.
8
See Office of Child Support Enforcement v. Willis, 341 Ark. 378, 17 S.W.3d 85 (2000).
-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.
