Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. of Arkansas v. Willa May Sudrick

896 S.W.2d 452, 49 Ark. App. 84, 1995 Ark. App. LEXIS 209
CourtCourt of Appeals of Arkansas
DecidedApril 19, 1995
DocketCA 94-141
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 896 S.W.2d 452 (Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. of Arkansas v. Willa May Sudrick) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. of Arkansas v. Willa May Sudrick, 896 S.W.2d 452, 49 Ark. App. 84, 1995 Ark. App. LEXIS 209 (Ark. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinions

John Mauzy Pittman, Judge.

Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company of Arkansas, Inc., brings this appeal contending that the trial court erred in granting appellee’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. We conclude that the trial court’s order granting the motion was entered at a time when the trial court had no jurisdiction or authority to so act, and we reverse and dismiss.

Appellee filed this action against appellant, her insurer, seeking to recover insurance proceeds on account of a fire loss. After a trial, the jury returned a verdict in which it found “for” appellee but awarded her no damages. On August 5,1993, the court entered its judgment in accordance with the jury verdict. On August 9, appellee filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial. On September 23, forty-five days after appellee s motion was filed, the trial court entered an order granting appellee’s motion for judgment n.o.v. and awarding her a judgment against appellant for $24,487.62. On September 27, appellant filed its notice of appeal.1

Appellee’s August 9 motion for judgment n.o.v. or a new trial was timely filed within ten days of the August 5 judgment. Ark. R. Civ. P. 50(b), 59(b). However, because the trial court neither granted nor denied the motion within thirty days of its filing, the motion was deemed denied as of the thirtieth day, September 8, 1993. Ark. R. App. P. 4(b) and (c). The trial court’s failure to act on appellee’s motion within thirty days of its filing resulted, by operation of law, in that court’s loss of jurisdiction to decide the motion. Therefore,, the September 23 order purporting to grant appellee’s motion for judgment n.o.v. was void and of no effect. See Reis v. Yates, 313 Ark. 300, 854 S.W.2d 335 (1993); Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Ayres, 311 Ark. 212, 842 S.W.2d 853 (1992); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Isely, 308 Ark. 342, 823 S.W.2d 902 (1992); Phillips v. Jacobs, 305 Ark. 365, 807 S.W.2d 923 (1991); Deason v. Farmers and Merchants Bank, 299 Ark. 167, 771 S.W.2d 749 (1989).

Reversed and dismissed.

Cooper and Mayfield, JJ., dissent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Falana Jackson-Rice v. Robert Rice
2026 Ark. App. 84 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 2026)
Emis v. Emis
2017 Ark. 52 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 2017)
Van Buren County Title Co. v. Bass
2009 Ark. 406 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 2009)
Vimy Ridge Municipal Water Improvement District No. 139 v. Ryles
284 S.W.3d 70 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 2008)
VIMY RIDGE MUN. WATER IMP. v. Ryles
284 S.W.3d 70 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 2008)
Pro-Comp Management, Inc. v. R.K. Enterprises, LLC
272 S.W.3d 91 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 2008)
Henley v. Medlock
244 S.W.3d 16 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 2006)
White v. Mattingly
199 S.W.3d 724 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 2004)
Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. of Arkansas v. Willa May Sudrick
896 S.W.2d 452 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
896 S.W.2d 452, 49 Ark. App. 84, 1995 Ark. App. LEXIS 209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farm-bureau-mutual-insurance-co-of-arkansas-v-willa-may-sudrick-arkctapp-1995.