Full Opinion

Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 377 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION 1 No. CV-25-322 STERMER DISTRBUTION, LLC Opinion Delivered September 2, 2026 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE MILLER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 46CV-19-266] EDWARD BURGESS D/B/A BOGGY HONORABLE CARLTON D. JONES, CREEK TIMBER CO. JUDGE APPELLEE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge Stermer Distribution, LLC (Stermer Distribution), appeals the judgment of the Miller County Circuit Court following a jury verdict in favor of Edward Burgess d/b/a Boggy Creek Timber Company (Burgess) for breach of contract. On appeal, Stermer Distribution argues that the circuit court erred by finding that it had personal jurisdiction. We must dismiss for lack of a final appealable order. On May 31, 2019, Burgess filed a complaint against Stermer Distribution and Dean Stermer (Dean), alleging claims for breach of contract and negligence. He alleged that the parties entered into a lease for certain logging equipment maintained in Miller County and that Stermer Distribution and Dean did not make payments pursuant to the lease. He further claimed that they mishandled the equipment, abused it, and abandoned it in Texas. Burgess attached the lease agreement between Burgess and Stermer Distribution. On August 27, Stermer Distribution and Dean entered special appearances contesting jurisdiction, and they asked the court to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. On February 6, 2023, the circuit court granted Dean’s request, but the court found that it had personal jurisdiction over Stermer Distribution. On December 12, Stermer Distribution again moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. On July 26, 2024, the court denied Stermer Distribution’s motion. On September 3, 4, and 5, 2024, the court held a jury trial. At trial, Stermer Distribution again objected to personal jurisdiction, and the court again ruled that it had personal jurisdiction. At the close of evidence, the court submitted only a breach-of-contract claim to the jury. The jury thereafter found that Stermer Distribution had breached its contract with Burgess and that Burgess had not materially breached his contract with Stermer Distribution. The jury concluded that Burgess was entitled to $52,000 in damages from Stermer Distribution. On October 9, the court entered a judgment in favor of Burgess against Stermer Distribution for $52,000.00 plus attorney’s fees of $17,331.60, prejudgment interest of $19,257.10, and costs of $425.00 for a total of $89,031.70.1 On October 18, Stermer 1 The judgment states, “[U]pon the Motion of [Burgess] for Judgment upon the jury’s verdict in this case. . . .” 2 Distribution filed its notice of appeal of the court’s order denying dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. Although neither party raises the issue, whether an order is final and subject to appeal is a jurisdictional question that the court will raise sua sponte. Eureka Gun & Pawn, LLC v. City of Eureka Springs, 2026 Ark. 1. Rule 2(a)(1) of the Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure–Civil provides that an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment or decree entered by the circuit court with certain enumerated exceptions. Ark. R. App. P.–Civ. 2(a)(1). For an order to be final and appealable, it must dismiss the parties from the court, discharge them from the action, or conclude their rights to the subject matter in controversy. Eureka Gun, 2026 Ark. 1. Under Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), an order that does not adjudicate all the claims as to all the parties—whether presented as claims, counterclaims, cross-claims, or third-party claims—is not final for purposes of appeal. Eureka Gun, 2026 Ark. 1; see also Ark. R. Civ. P. 54(b)(1). In this case, the judgment from which Stermer Distribution appeals is not a final order because there has been no final disposition of Burgess’s negligence claim. The jury was not instructed on negligence, and the judgment was entered pursuant to the jury’s verdict. Further, there is no order in the record disposing of the claim, and there was no attempt to obtain certification in compliance with Rule 54(b)(1). Because Burgess’s negligence claim remains pending, we do not have jurisdiction to address the merits on appeal, and we must dismiss. See Eureka Gun, 2026 Ark. 1; Cauffiel v. Progressive Eldercare Servs.-Saline, Inc., 2020 Ark. App. 42; Stebbins v. Stebbins, 2017 Ark. App. 428. 3 We also note that the record pleadings indicate that Stermer Distribution filed an answer and counterclaim, but the answer is not in the record, and the record does not contain an order addressing the counterclaim. Stermer Distribution did not abandon any claims in its notice of appeal. Thus, it is unclear which counterclaim Stermer Distribution asserted and whether that counterclaim has been resolved. Dismissed without prejudice. THYER and HIXSON, JJ., agree. David J. Potter, for appellant. Patton Tidwell & Culbertson, LLP, by: Geoffrey Culbertson, for appellee. 4