Potter v. Potter
This text of 690 S.W.2d 124 (Potter v. Potter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
What the appellant calls a petition for a temporary restraining order and injunction is, in effect, merely a request for the trial judge to change his prior ruling.
The parties were divorced in 1981, and we modified that decree in Potter v. Potter, 280 Ark. 38, 655 S.W.2d 382 (1983). The parties’ residence was ordered sold and Mrs. Potter bought it. The sale to her was confirmed; the confirmation is the subject of a separate appeal.
The appellant moved for permission to occupy the house during the pending of that appeal since Mrs. Potter had moved out and to enjoin her from renting the premises to a third party. The judge denied the request without a hearing. Although Potter characterized his prayer as one for injunctive relief, in effect, the motion asked the judge to change his prior ruling which gave Mrs. Potter temporary occupancy, ordered the home sold and confirmed the sale. The appellant’s request is not a final and appealable order as defined in Ark. R. App. P. 2. If it were, all orders before, during and after a divorce decree could be appealed.
Appeal dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
690 S.W.2d 124, 286 Ark. 169, 1985 Ark. LEXIS 2025, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/potter-v-potter-ark-1985.