APPEAL
FROM THE GARLAND COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 26CV-18-1288]
HONORABLE LYNN WILLIAMS, JUDGE
The
Applegate Firm, PLLC, by: Ryan J. Applegate, for appellant.
Jonathan D. Jones, for appellee.
RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, JUDGE.
Java's
Motorcycle Repair, LLC (Java), appeals the Garland County
Circuit Court order dismissing its appeal of the judgment
entered in favor of Gary Barth by the Garland County District
Court. On appeal, Java argues that the circuit court erred in
finding that it untimely appealed the judgment. We agree and
reverse and remand.
On
December 4, 2017, Barth filed a complaint against Java in the
Garland County District Court alleging that Java had
negligently repaired his motorcycle. On April 27, 2018, the
district court held a trial and took the matter under
advisement.
On June
28, the district court sent an email to the parties. The
email states in part as follows:
Based upon the pleadings, testimony, and other evidence
presented, I find that Plaintiff Gary Barth is entitled to
judgment in his favor and an award of damages in the amount
$3, 310.99, plus court costs.
The
email was not filed in the district court docket. On June 29,
the following entry was made in the district court docket:
CLERK NOTE - PER EMAIL FROM JUDGE SWITZER - DECISION IN FAVOR
OF PLAINTIFF - ATTY JONES TO PREPARE PRECEDENT FOR JUDGE TO
SIGN
On
August 1, the district court entered a written judgment
against Java on the docket and awarded Barth $3, 310 and
court costs. On August 10, Java filed a notice of appeal in
the district court, and on August 17, Java filed a certified
copy of the district court docket sheet with the circuit
court clerk.
On
September 14, Barth filed a motion to dismiss the appeal in
the circuit court and asserted that Java had untimely
appealed to circuit court. Specifically, Barth argued that
Java had filed its appeal more than thirty days after the
June 29 docket entry awarding judgment to Barth. Java
responded that its appeal time did not begin to run on June
29 because the judgment amount was not docketed on that date.
On October 8, the circuit court granted Barth's motion
and dismissed Java's appeal. Java appealed the dismissal
to this court.
On
appeal, Java argues that the circuit court erred by
dismissing its appeal from the district court because it
timely perfected the appeal in the circuit court pursuant to
Arkansas District Court Rule 9. Specifically, Java asserts
that its appeal time did not begin on June 29 because the
docket entry did not state the judgment amount. In response,
Barth recognizes that the June 29 docket entry did not
specifically state the judgment amount, but he points out
that the entry references the district court's email, and
the email specifically stated the judgment amount of $3,
310.99[1] plus court costs. He asks us to apply the
incorporation-by-reference doctrine as set forth in
Slaton v. Slaton, 336 Ark. 211, 983 S.W.2d 951
(1999), and hold that the June 29 entry initiated Java's
appeal time.
Because
the circuit court considered matters outside the pleadings,
we treat this case as a grant of summary judgment. Circle
D Contractors, Inc. v. Bartlett, 2013 Ark. 131. When we
review summary-judgment cases in which factual issues do not
exist, we simply determine whether the prevailing party was
...