Case Title: Hudson v. Hudson

Citation: 277 Ark. 183, 641 S.W.2d 1

Docket Number: 82-223, 82-86

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1982-10-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
641 S.W.2d 1 (1982) 277 Ark. 183 Charles Rayford HUDSON, Sr., Appellant, v. Charles Rayford HUDSON, Jr., Appellee. Nos. 82-86, 82-223. Supreme Court of Arkansas. October 18, 1982. Rehearing Denied November 22, 1982. Henry & Duckett by David P. Henry, Little Rock, for appellant. Bob Dawson, Sherwood, for appellee. ADKISSON, Chief Justice. Two separate appeals arising from the same trial court case are consolidated in this opinion. Both will be disposed of by a construction of Rule 3(e), Rules of Appellate Procedure, Ark.Stat.Ann., Vol. 3A (Repl.1979), which provides: The record reflects that the final decree was entered in this case on September 16, 1981; that the "notice of appeal and designation of record" was filed on September 24: The notice did not contain a statement that the transcript had been ordered, and on November 13 appellee filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for failure to include such a statement. The transcript was finally ordered from the reporter on December 7, 1981. The provision for ordering the transcript under Rule 3(e) has been construed to be satisfied by substantial compliance, provided the appellee has not been prejudiced or misled by the failure to strictly comply with the rule. Brady v. Alken, Inc., 273 Ark. 147, 617 S.W.2d 358 (1981); Davis v. Ralston Purina Co., 248 Ark. 14, 449 S.W.2d 709 (1970). However, we stated in Brady, supra, that: Here, there was no compliance with the pertinent provision of Rule 3(e), substantial or otherwise. The rule was totally ignored. The trial court erred in not dismissing the appeal for failure to file a proper notice of appeal; therefore, the appeal is dismissed *2 and the trial court's final decree of September 16 is affirmed. Reversed in part; affirmed in part. PURTLE and HAYS, JJ., not participating.