Cite as

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CV-14-668

Opinion Delivered MARCH 4, 2015

OWEN KELLY APPEAL FROM THE WASHINGTON APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. DR-13-2217] V. HONORABLE JOANNA TAYLOR, JUDGE MANDY KELLY APPELLEE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

DAVID M. GLOVER, Judge

Owen Kelly and Mandy Kelly were married on April 24, 1994, and divorced by decree

entered on March 24, 2014, in the Washington County Circuit Court. Two children were

born of the marriage, KGK, born in November 1999, and HK, born in October 2002. In the

decree, Mandy was awarded custody of the children, and the trial court determined that she

needed $16,659 per month for her expenses. The decree directed Owen, beginning on April

1, 2014, to monthly pay $7,528 in child support and $9,131 in alimony. The decree further

directed: (i) when KGK attained majority, child support would be reduced to the monthly

sum of $5,366, and alimony would be automatically increased to the monthly sum of $11,293,

and (ii) when HK attained majority, child support would cease, and alimony would be

automatically increased to the monthly sum of $16,659. Owen argues on appeal that the trial

court abused its discretion in ordering the alimony to automatically increase when there was Cite as

no showing of any future increased needs to justify the automatic increases. For the reasons

discussed below, however, we dismiss the appeal because there is not a final, appealable order.

In the decree, the trial court also ordered that the marital home would remain on the

market until July 15, 2014; that if the home sold during that period, the parties would divide

the net proceeds evenly; however, if the home had not sold by July 15, 2014, the house

would be sold on the Pope County Courthouse steps,1 with the net proceeds to be divided

equally between the parties.

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 trial court. When the

order appealed from is not final, we are without jurisdiction to decide the merits. Carroll v.

Carroll,

. As a general rule, a conditional judgment, order, or decree, the

finality of which depends on certain contingencies that may or may not occur, is not a final

order for purposes of appeal. Wadley v. Wadley,

, at 3. An order

announcing the court’s determination of the rights of the parties but contemplating further

judicial action is not appealable. Shafer v. Estate of Shafer,

, at 1. Here, the

decree contemplated further action—the marital home would be listed for sale, where it might

or might not be sold, depending on whether the parties agreed on the selling price (there was

testimony from Owen, who was responsible for the mortgage payments on the marital home,

that there had been offers on the residence that were acceptable to him but had not been

1 The marital home was located in Russellville.

2 Cite as

acceptable to Mandy), or if it had not been sold by July 15, 2014, the home would be sold

on the steps of the courthouse. This decree is not a final order and, absent a Rule 54(b)

certificate, which we do not have in this case, we have no jurisdiction to decide the merits.

We therefore dismiss the appeal without prejudice. We express no opinion on the underlying

merits of this appeal.

Appeal dismissed without prejudice.

VIRDEN and GRUBER, JJ., agree.

Everett, Wales & Comstock, by: John C. Everett; and Smith, Cohen & Horan, PLC, by:

Matthew T. Horan, for appellant.

Clark Law Firm PLLC, by: Suzanne G. Clark, for appellee.

3