Case Title: McPeek v. White River Lodge Enters.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1996-06-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
Donald L. McPEEK, et al. v. WHITE RIVER LODGE
ENTERPRISES, et al.

93-1267                                            ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                 Opinion delivered June 17, 1996


1.   Appeal & error -- no showing motion ever ruled upon at trial -
     - issue not reached on appeal. -- Appellant's contention that
     the chancellor erred in denying attorney's fees sought
     pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.  14-236-106 (Supp. 1995) was not
     addressed by the supreme court where the abstract contained no
     order denying a request for fees made pursuant to the statute.

2.   Appeal & error -- no order denying relief abstracted --
     appellate court did not reach issue. -- Appellant's argument
     that the chancellor erred by excluding part of the fees and
     costs requested for violation of ARCP Rule 11 and by denying
     fees and costs sought by them pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.  16-
     22-309(a)(1) (Repl. 1994) was not reached on appeal where
     there was no order in the abstract denying such relief or
     showing that it was considered by the chancellor.

3.   Appeal & error -- bare essentials of abstract -- neither
     appellants or cross-appellants properly abstracted record to
     demonstrate error. -- A summary of the pleadings and the
     judgment appealed from are the bare essentials of an abstract;
     an appellant's abstract or abridgement of the record should
     consist of an impartial condensation of the material parts of
     the pleadings, proceedings, facts, documents, and other
     matters in the record as are necessary to an understanding of
     all questions presented to the appellate court for decision;
     it is impractical, and oftentimes impossible, for all seven
     judges to attempt to pass around the one record; it is the
     appellant's burden to abstract the record to demonstrate
     error, and the appellate court will not go to the record to
     determine whether reversible error occurred; the same rule
     applies to cross-appellants. 


     Appeal from Carroll Chancery Court; Terry Crabtree,
Chancellor; affirmed on appeal; affirmed on cross-appeal.
     Austin & Osborne, by:  Brenda Austin, for appellants.
     Matthews, Campbell, Rhoads, McClure & Thompson, P.A., by: 
David R. Matthews and Larry J. Thompson, for appellees.

     David Newbern, Justice.June 17, 1996   *ADVREP*SC2*


DONALD L. MCPEEK, et al.           93-1267
                                   Opinion Delivered:
          Appellants
     v.                            Appeal from Carroll County
                                   Chancery Court
WHITE RIVER LODGE ENTERPRISES,
et al.                             Honorable Terry Crabtree,
          Appellees                Chancellor
                                   Affirmed on Appeal;
                                   Affirmed on Cross-Appeal




                     David Newbern, Justice.
     
     The procedural history of this case, which began in 1988, is
long and tortured.  It now comes to an end as we must affirm on
appeal and on cross-appeal because of failure of the parties to
furnish abstracts of the orders from which the appeal and cross-
appeal have been taken.
     Donald and Mary Louise McPeek sought an injunction preventing
White River Lodge Enterprises and its general partners (White
River) from discharging effluent on the McPeeks' property from
White River's sewage disposal system.  White River counter-claimed,
alleging the McPeeks were improperly claiming title to property
belonging to White River at their joint boundary.  The boundary
dispute counter-claim was not pursued by White River at the trial,
and a judgment was entered on June 21, 1993, denying the injunctive
relief sought by the McPeeks.    
     The McPeeks filed a notice of appeal on July 9, 1993, and
proceeded with an appeal before this Court.  Thereafter, they moved
in the Chancery Court to have the judgment set aside on the ground
that Timothy Coplin, one of the owners of White River, had given
false testimony.  The appeal pending in this Court was dismissed,
and the case was remanded to the Chancellor to settle the record. 
On March 25, 1994, the Chancellor set the original judgment aside.
     After further hearings, the Chancellor awarded an injunction
in favor of the McPeeks by an order entered August 2, 1994.  The
McPeeks filed a supplemental motion on October 20, 1994, alleging
unnecessary delay, harassment, interference with discovery, false
testimony, and a false claim against their real property, seeking
costs and fees pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 11.  As abstracted, the
motion mentions only Rule 11 as a basis for recovery.
     In an order entered January 24, 1995, the Chancellor imposed
Rule 11 sanctions on White River, and the McPeeks were given 10
days to submit an itemized list of fees and costs.  The abstract
contains no further order concerning the fees and costs; nor is
there any abstract of the list of fees and costs to be considered
by the Chancellor.  Some fee and costs lists are included as
"addenda" at the conclusion of the McPeeks' brief, but we have no
way of knowing if how, or when, these lists were submitted to the
Chancellor.  Many of the items in them are stated as "fees" without
further information as to who charged them or to whom they were
paid, if they were paid, or to what aspect of the case they may
have been related.  We do have an abstract of testimony by Mr.
McPeek stating that he was, during his testimony, handed a list of
fees and expenses he says he paid in connection with the
litigation, but we do not have any way of knowing if the lists in
the addenda to the brief are the ones handed to him during his
testimony.
     In arguing their first point of appeal, the McPeeks contend
the Chancellor erred in denying attorney's fees sought pursuant to
Ark. Code Ann.  14-236-106 (Supp. 1995).  That section provides
for the awarding of attorney's fees, damages, and a penalty against
one who "willingly and knowingly" violates the Arkansas Sewage
Disposal Systems Act.  Ark. Code Ann.  14-236-101 through 14-236-
118 (1987 and Supp. 1995).  The abstract contains no order denying
a request for fees made pursuant to that statute.  As noted above,
the only reference in the abstract of the motion for fees shows
that the fees were sought pursuant to Rule 11, and there is no
mention of the statute.  The McPeeks have not demonstrated that the
Chancellor ruled on their motion, even if we could conclude the
motion was made pursuant to the statute.  Farmers Bank v. Perry,
301 Ark. 547,