ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
DIVISION I

MARK HARNESS

APPELLANT

V.

BUDDY CURTIS and ROSE CURTIS

APPELLEES

CA02-1143

October 8, 2003

APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. CV 02-358]

HONORABLE JAY MOODY, SPECIAL CIRCUIT JUDGE

APPEAL DISMISSED

Josephine Linker Hart, Judge

Appellant, Mark Harness, appeals from the circuit court's decision that appellant, as purchaser, materially breached the parties' land sale contract and that appellees, Buddy Curtis and Rose Curtis, were entitled to remain in possession of the property, $5,000 in damages, and $350 in attorney's fees. Appellant raises several arguments on appeal, but because the order appealed from is not a final order under Rule 54(b) of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure, we dismiss the appeal.

Appellees filed a complaint stating that the parties had entered into a "Purchaser's Agreement" by which appellant agreed to purchase certain real property in Pulaski County. Appellees, alleging that appellant had breached the agreement, sought possession of the property, damages, and attorney's fees. Appellant denied appellees' allegations and further pleaded that he had "an equitable interest in the property" and that, "should a claim against [appellant] be successful[,] [appellant] should be awarded all equity in the property including money paid upon the Installment Contract and increase in property value through improvements and increase in market value."

At the first hearing, the court granted appellees possession of the property. Following a final hearing, the court ruled that appellant materially breached the agreement and that appellees were entitled to remain in possession of the property, $5,000 in damages, and $350 in attorney's fees. The court, however, did not address appellant's claim that he should be awarded the increase in property value.

Failure to comply with Rule 54(b) affects the subject-matter jurisdiction of this court, and we are obligated to raise the issue on our own. Dodge v. Lee, 350 Ark. 480, 88 S.W.3d 843 (2002). Under Rule 54(b), an order that fails to adjudicate all of the claims as to all of the parties, whether presented as claims, counterclaims, cross-claims, or third-party claims, is not final for purposes of appeal. Id. As discussed above, appellant's claim was not adjudicated. When the order appealed from does not dispose of all claims, the order is not a final, appealable order under Rule 54(b), and the appeal must be dismissed. Id. Thus, we dismiss the appeal without prejudice.

Appeal dismissed.

Pittman and Griffen, JJ., agree.