In a cautionary tale about keeping track of the status of a case that is under consideration by the trial court, the Arkansas Supreme Court dismissed Sloan v. Arkansas Rural Medical Practice Loan and Scholarship Board for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
This appellate practice decision arose out of a contractual dispute between the Board, which provides scholarships to doctors who agree to practice in rural counties after graduation, and two of the Board's scholarship recipients. The scholarship recipients lost before the Board and in front of University of Arkansas President Alan Sugg; they then appealed to Pulaski County Circuit Court, where Circuit Judge Marion Humphrey ruled.
On June 23, 2006, the trial court issued an order holding, in effect, for the Scholarship Board.
On July 24, 2006, of course, the 30-day period of Rule 4(a) of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure--Civil passed. Without a timely notice of appeal there is no appellate jurisdiction and no appeal.
On September 21, 2006, however, the Sloans filed a motion to extend their time to file the appeal, which the court granted; the notice of appeal followed on September 29, 2006. The Arkansas Supreme Court found that the motion was erroneous and the notice late, and dismissed.
The Sloans attempted to avoid their appellate fate by arguing that they didn't know about the June order because the clerk failed to disseminate it. The Court gave short shrift to this argument:
[The] Sloans filed a motion requesting that the circuit court extend the time for filing the notice of appeal because the clerk’s office had “failed to disseminate the order” to the Sloans. This bare allegation is the only evidence in the record used to assert grounds for an extension under Rule 4(b)(3). This conclusion and self-serving allegation falls far short of establishing the diligence required of the Sloans and their attorneys so they may acquire any help or benefit from Rule 4(b)(3).
There are two other interesting appellate practice points in this opinion:
- The Sloans filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court detailing their diligence in checking the circuit court's docket, but the Court held that the affidavit was outside the record. The Court also pointedly asked: "Even if this court could consider these affidavits, it raises the question of why, if the two affiants were closely monitoring the progress of this case and its appeal, did the Sloans fail to discover when it was filed and wait almost three months to request an extension for their appeal?"
- The Sloans had filed a motion to dismiss the appeal; it is unclear whether the motion was intended to avoid a dismissal by published opinion or to gain an opportunity to save the appeal below. In any event, the Court denied the motion, reasoning that it could not dismiss an appeal that it had never acquired appellate jurisdiction of in the first place.