R. Jerry McLeod, appearing pro se, appeals from the trial court’s order granting Stan Clements’s motion for declaratory judgment and dismissing McLeod’s two and nearly identical actions against Clements with prejudice. For the reasons set forth infra , we reverse the trial court’s order and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. This ongoing dispute, now making its fourth appearance before this Court,1 concerns McLeod’s claim of entitlement to water supplied by a well on Clements’s property pursuant to an agreement between previous owners of their respective properties. Specifically, McLeod filed a complaint against Clements “First Lawsuit”, alleging that Clements was required to supply him with water from a well located on Clements’s property pursuant to a 1971 water agreement executed prior to Clements’s ownership of that property. Clements answered this complaint and filed a counterclaim requesting a declaratory judgment as to his obligation under the 1971 agreement. That same day, Clements filed a notice of hearing, reflecting that the declaratory-judgment hearing was scheduled for July 21, 2008. On July 18, 2008, McLeod allegedly dismissed the First Lawsuit, and on July 21, 2008 the day of the declaratory-judgment hearing, filed another, essentially identical complaint “Second Lawsuit”.2 McLeod apparently was not present for the hearing, after which, on August 5, 2008, the trial court entered an order and judgment finding that the 1971 water-service agreement did not bind Clements.3 On August 19 and September 2, 2008, McLeod filed motions to set aside this judgment, but on September 4, 2008, before the trial court could rule on those motions, he filed a notice of appeal of the August 5, 2008 order.4
While that appeal was pending, Clements moved to consolidate the cases, to strike McLeod’s motion to set aside, and to recover attorney fees.5 In its November 11, 2008 order, the trial court did not rule on McLeod’s motions related to the First Lawsuit, because McLeod filed a notice of appeal before obtaining a ruling on those matters. The trial court did, however, dismiss the Second Lawsuit, finding that “the issues presented in the Second Lawsuit have been formerly adjudicated in the First Lawsuit,” and also granted Clements attorney fees. McLeod subsequently filed a second notice of appeal related to the dismissal of the Second Lawsuit.6
