BOSTON MOUNTAIN REGIONAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT APPELLANT
BENTON COUNTY REGIONAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT APPELLEE
APPEAL FROM THE BENTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. CV-2013-940-5] HONORABLE XOLLIE DUNCAN, JUDGE
Harrison and Vaught, JJ., agree. Harrington, Miller, Kieklak, Eichmann & Brown, P.A., by: Thomas N. Kieklak, for appellant.
Hall, Estill, Hardwick, Gable, Golden & Nelson, P.C., by: Curtis E. Hogue, for appellee.
WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge
Appellant Boston Mountain Regional Solid Waste Management District appeals from a judgment in favor of appellee Benton County Regional Solid Waste Management District following a breach-of-contract action. We do not reach the merits of this appeal and dismiss without prejudice because of an insufficient Rule 54(b) certificate.
Appellant and appellee are regional solid-waste-management districts governed by Arkansas Code Annotated section 8-6-701 et seq. (Repl. 2011). Section 8-6-704(a)(11) of this chapter confers authority on regional solid-waste-management districts to enter into contracts, and from this authority, the parties entered into a contract, entitled the Interlocal Agreement, for the disposal of solid waste.
Pursuant to the terms of the Interlocal Agreement, each party agreed to charge $1.50 per ton on all solid waste generated within its respective district or brought into its district from another district for disposal. The Interlocal Agreement was binding until May 1, 2016. However, appellant unilaterally terminated the agreement on May 9, 2013, before its specified end-date.
Appellee sued appellant in the Benton County Circuit Court alleging breach of contract and seeking specific performance of the Interlocal Agreement. Appellant answered and counterclaimed for declaratory judgment and affirmative relief. The circuit court ruled in favor of appellee finding that the agreement was valid and binding on both parties, that it contained the provisions required by statute, and that appellant breached the contract. The circuit court ordered specific performance of the Interlocal Agreement through May 2016. It did not, however, rule on appellant's counterclaim.
Appellant timely appealed the circuit court's order. Later, appellant filed a motion for issuance of a certified final judgment. The circuit court entered a certified final judgment that included a Rule 54(b) certification, and appellant filed an amended notice of appeal of the partial judgment of the circuit court.
Rule 2(a)(1) of the Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure–Civil provides that an appeal may be taken from a final judgment or decree entered by the circuit court. Whether an order is final and subject to appeal is a jurisdictional question that this court will raise sua sponte.
A circuit court may certify an otherwise nonfinal order for immediate appeal by executing a certificate pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). Rule 54(b) provides in pertinent part that a circuit court may direct the entry of a final judgment "only upon an express determination, supported by specific factual findings, that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment." In addition, the rule provides that, if such a determination is made, the court must execute a certificate "which shall set forth the factual findings upon which the determination to enter the judgment as final is based." This rule requires that the certificate include specific findings of any danger of hardship or injustice that could be alleviated by an immediate appeal and to set out the factual underpinnings that establish such hardship or injustice.
Recognizing that the circuit court did not dispose of all issues in the case, the appellant moved for a certified final judgment, and the circuit court entered a certified final judgment with a Rule 54(b) certificate that provided as follows:
1. The parties entered into an Agreement authorized by Act 209 of 2011, and Arkansas Code ...