Full Opinion

Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 529 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No. CV-25-712 ONE MAIN SQUARE, LLC; AND Opinion Delivered November 4, 2026 BRUCE BURROW APPELLANTS APPEAL FROM THE CRAIGHEAD COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT V. [NO. 16JCV-24-73] LAUREL PARK, LLC; AND ANDREW HONORABLE RICHARD LUSBY, SMITH JUDGE APPELLEES DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge One Main Square, LLC (One Main Square); and Bruce Burrow appeal the Craighead County Circuit Court order granting summary judgment on their quiet-title claim in favor of Laurel Park, LLC (Laurel Park); and Andrew Smith. On appeal, One Main Square and Bruce argue that the circuit court erred by finding that Arkansas Code Annotated section 18-60-601 (Repl. 2015) was their exclusive remedy to adjudicate title. We must dismiss for lack of a final, appealable order. Because we must dismiss the appeal, we provide only a brief discussion of the necessary procedural history of the case. The case concerns real property located at 100 West Washington Avenue (the real property) in Jonesboro and the Citizens Bank Building (the building) that sat on the real property.1 In 1953, the real property owners leased the real property but retained ownership of improvements on the land. Over the years that followed, the building’s construction was completed, the lease was assigned, and the real property was sold, which led to the current dispute over the ownership of the real property and the building. Specifically, on January 16, 2024, Laurel Park filed a complaint for unlawful detainer, breach of contract, quiet title, and declaratory judgment against One Main Square; MBC Holdings Worldwide, LLC (MBC Holdings); and Sherry and Bruce Burrow. It asked the court to quiet title to both the real property and the building to Laurel Park and to declare that One Main Square had no ownership interest in the building. Laurel Park also claimed that One Main Square had breached a lease of the real property by not making payments starting in October 2022 and by not paying taxes and assessments in 2021 and 2022. On February 15, 2024, One Main Square and Bruce filed a counterclaim for quiet title to the building against Laurel Park and its owner, Andrew Smith. On July 19, One Main Square and Bruce amended their petition to quiet title and added John Perry and Citifirst, LLC, as defendants, alleging that they held mortgages on the building. On March 13, Smith joined Laurel Park’s complaint as a party plaintiff. On August 12, One Main Square and Bruce filed a second amended petition to quiet title and counterclaims for breach of contract and specific performance against Laurel Park and Smith. 1 The pleadings state that the City of Jonesboro demolished the building in 2026. 2 On October 23, Laurel Park and Smith moved for a voluntary nonsuit on their claims for a declaratory judgment and quiet title, and on October 28, the court entered an order dismissing Laurel Park and Smith’s claims for a declaratory judgment and quiet title without prejudice pursuant Arkansas Rule Civil Procedure 41(a). On January 22, 2025, Laurel Park and Smith moved for summary judgment on One Main Square and Bruce’s counterclaims for breach of contract, specific performance, and quiet title. On March 25, the court entered an order granting Laurel Park and Smith’s summary- judgment motion on One Main Square and Bruce’s counterclaims for quiet title, breach of contract, and specific performance. Accordingly, the court dismissed One Main Square and Burrow’s counterclaims with prejudice. The court also dismissed MBC Holdings and Sherry Burrow from the case following the parties’ concessions. On July 14, Laurel Park and Smith moved for a voluntary nonsuit of their claims for breach of contract and unlawful detainer. On July 17, the court granted Laurel Park and Smith’s motion and dismissed their claims for unlawful detainer and breach of contract without prejudice pursuant to Arkansas Rule Civil Procedure 41(a). On August 15, One Main Square and Bruce filed a notice of appeal, and they abandoned any pending but unresolved claims. We now turn to the reason for dismissal. Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure–Civil 2(a)(1) provides that an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment or decree entered by the circuit court. A final order is one that dismisses the parties, discharges them from the action, or concludes their rights to the 3 subject matter in controversy. Johnson v. Windstream Commc’ns, Inc., 2016 Ark. App. 419. Whether an order is final for appeal purposes is a jurisdictional question that this court will raise sua sponte. Deer/Mt. Judea Sch. Dist. v. Beebe, 2012 Ark. 93. When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action or when multiple parties are involved, an order that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties is not a final, appealable order. Ark. R. Civ. P. 54(b)(1). The purpose of the rule is to avoid piecemeal litigation. Toland v. Robinson, 2017 Ark. 41. A defendant cannot appeal from an order granting a plaintiff’s motion for nonsuit under Arkansas Rule Civil Procedure 41(a). Griffin v. Ark. Bd. of Corrs., 2025 Ark. 81, 711 S.W.3d 784 (citing Beverly Enters.-Ark., Inc. v. Hillier, 341 Ark. 1, 14 S.W.3d 487 (2000)). A voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a) leaves a plaintiff free to refile a claim, assuming there has been no previous dismissal, which creates the possibility of piecemeal appeals. Convent Corp. v. City of N. Little Rock, 2018 Ark. 45. In this case, plaintiffs Laurel Park and Smith moved for voluntary nonsuit of their claims, and the court dismissed their claims without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a) on October 28, 2024, and July 17, 2025. One Main Square and Burrow appealed following the July 17, 2025 order. Even though One Main Square and Burrow abandoned any pending but unresolved claims in their notice of appeal, they cannot abandon Laurel Park and Smith’s claims. See Derrick Brown, 2020 Ark. App. 20. Accordingly, we are left without a final, appealable order, and we must dismiss the appeal. Our stated reasons for dismissal for lack 4 of finality should not be construed as exhaustive, and prior to any future appeal, we urge the parties to ensure that there are no other finality issues. Dismissed without prejudice. BARRETT and MURPHY, JJ., agree. Baxter Law Firm, PLLC, by: James R. Baxter, for appellants. Rogers & Coe, by: J. Matthew Coe, for appellees. 5