ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

SAM BIRD, JUDGE

DIVISION IV

ANGELA WALLS,

APPELLANT

V.

COURTNEY WALLS,

APPELLEE

CA00-837

APRIL 4, 2001

APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CHANCERY COURT,

NO. QT99-2074,

HON. MACKIE M. PIERCE, CHANCELLOR

AFFIRMED

Appellant, Angela Walls, is a daughter of decedent Porter Walls; appellee, Courtney Walls, is his son. The action that gave rise to this appeal began when appellant, acting as executor of the decedent's estate, filed in the Pulaski County Chancery Court a petition to quiet title and set aside deeds. The chancery court dismissed the petition. Appellant's sole point of appeal is that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing her lawsuit rather than holding it in abeyance pending the outcome of a collateral appeal to this court in a case from the Pulaski County Probate Court.

The following findings were made in the February 1, 2000, order of dismissal by the Pulaski County Chancery Court:

1. That on or about April 21, 1999, the Plaintiff [Angela Walls] filed a Petition to Quiet Title and Set Aside Deeds. In said petition, the Plaintiff was designated as the administratrix of the Estate of Porter Walls.

2. On May 25, 1999, the Honorable Van Smith, Chancellor of the Third Division, Pulaski County, Arkansas, found that the proper executor of the Estate of Porter Walls was Courtney Walls, not Angela Walls. Said matter is currently on appeal.

3. That the Order entered on May 25, 1999 constitutes a final and valid order and designates Courtney Walls as the Executor of the Estate of Porter Walls.

4. That the Plaintiff had no standing in which to continue with this matter as she is not the duly appointed personal representative of the estate or the Administratix of same. The Plaintiff lacks standing at the present time to pursue this cause of action.

Pertinent to this appeal is the chancery court's ruling that appellant had no standing to bring her lawsuit because she was found by the probate court not to be the executor of the estate. Appellant's appeal of the probate order, which had not been decided when briefs in the present case were submitted, has now been affirmed in Walls v. Walls, CA99-1477, slip op. (Ark. App. February 28, 2001).

Appellant contends that her second lawsuit should not have been dismissed because the parties and interests of the two suits were interdependent, and because she violated no court rules or orders, nor did she display inaction based on slothfulness. She cites several cases from other jurisdictions that allow determination of pending litigation before a related case is decided. We do not view these cases, however, as convincing authority for the argument that, here, the chancery court abused its discretion by failing to hold his ruling in abeyance until the appeal of the probate order was final. It has been said on numerous occasions that the appellate court will not consider the merits of an argument if the appellant fails to cite any convincing legal authority in support of that argument. Womack v. Foster, 340 Ark. 124, 8 S.W.3d 854 (2000).

Affirmed.

Robbins and Roaf, JJ., agree.