Myers v. McCall
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 404
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION I
No. CA10-1210
Opinion Delivered June
TAMMY McCALL MYERS
APPELLANT
V.
STEVEN CARTER McCALL
APPELLEE
1, 2011
APPEAL FROM THE
SEBASTIAN COUNTY CIRCUIT
COURT, GREENWOOD
DISTRICT
[NO. DR 1997-442-G]
HONORABLE JIM D. SPEARS,
JUDGE
DISMISSED
JOSEPHINE LINKER HART, Judge
This case involves child support and medical expenses for the parties’ two daughters
over a decade after the parties were divorced. For the reasons explained below, we dismiss the
appeal for lack of a final order.
When the parties were divorced in 1998, appellant Tammy McCall Myers was
awarded custody of the children. In 2007, the parties entered into an agreed order concerning
child-support arrearages and past-due medical expenses, child support through college, and
future medical and dental expenses. In 2008, appellee Steven McCall asked for custody and
child support, which the court granted.1 Over the next two years, the parties filed numerous
motions for relief. After the circuit court entered an order on September 29, 2010, appellant
pursued this appeal.
1
On July 1, 2009, we affirmed the circuit court’s change of custody from appellant to
appellee. See Myers v. McCall, 2009 Ark. App. 541, 334 S.W.3d 878.
Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 404
We cannot reach the merits of appellant’s points on appeal. Rule 2(a)(1) of the
Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure–Civil (2011) provides that an appeal may be taken
only from a final judgment or decree entered by the circuit court. The question of whether
an order is final and appealable is jurisdictional, and we are obligated to consider the issue on
our own even if the parties do not raise it. See Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Austin, 2010
Ark. App. 753, ___ S.W.3d ___. For an order or judgment to be final, it must dispose of all
parties and all claims in the lawsuit. See id.; Ark. R. Civ. P. 54(b)(1) (2011). An order that
adjudicates fewer than all of the claims is not appealable unless the trial court expressly directs
the entry of a final judgment to claims disposed of and determines that there is no just reason
for delay, pursuant to Rule 54(b). The circuit court has not issued a Rule 54(b) certificate in
this case.
The circuit court has not yet ruled on two of appellant’s motions. On December 4,
2008, she asked the court to abate her child-support obligation. In a motion filed November
20, 2009, she requested that it reduce that obligation and that it decide the parties’
responsibility for the deposition fee owed to the dentist of one of their daughters. Because this
court lacks jurisdiction due to the unresolved issues, this appeal must be dismissed without
prejudice to refile at a later date.
Dismissed.
G LADWIN and A BRAMSOM, 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.
