Case Title: McAdams v. Automotive Rentals, Inc.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1996-05-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
McAdams v. Automotive Rentals, Inc.  Bobby McADAMS, Attorney in Fact for Shelby L. McAdams and Theresa McAdams, and Bob McAdams v. AUTOMOTIVE RENTALS, INC. 96-85 ___ S.W.2d ___ Supreme Court of Arkansas Opinion delivered May 6, 1996 1. Appeal & error -- orders not made part of record on appeal -- appellant had burden to bring up sufficient record on appeal. -- Where all five arguments advanced by appellants pertained to rulings in the trial court prior to the first appeal, and appellants referred to orders from the prior appeal and record and partially abstracted a March 1994 order, but where those orders were not a part of the record on appeal, the supreme court affirmed the appeal without reaching the merits; the burden is on appellant to bring up a record sufficient to show that the trial court was wrong. 2. Appeal & error -- abstract should contain condensation of all material facts -- appellant has burden of presenting abstract that sufficiently demonstrates reversible error. -- 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 court for decision; there is only one record and there are seven judges; it is impractical, and often impossible, for all seven judges to attempt to pass around the one record, and the court will not do so; it is appellant's burden to present an abstract that sufficiently demonstrates reversible error. Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court; Annabelle Clinton Imber, Chancellor; affirmed. C.W. Patty, Jr, for appellants Shelby L. McAdams and Theresa McAdams. Bob J. Adams, pro se. Eichenbaum, Scott, Miller, Liles, & Heister, P.A., by: James H. Penick, III, for appellee. Andree Layton Roaf, Justice.May 6, 1996. *ADVREP4* BOBBY JOE MCADAMS, ATTORNEY IN FACT FOR SHELBY L. MCADAMS AND THERESA MCADAMS, AND BOB MCADAMS, APPELLANTS, V. AUTOMOTIVE RENTALS, INC., APPELLEE. 96-85 APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CHANCERY COURT, NO. 91-4764, HON. ANNABELLE CLINTON IMBER, JUDGE, AFFIRMED. JUSTICE ANDREE LAYTON ROAF Appellants bring this appeal from a chancellor's order entered in a foreclosure action. This court affirmed a previous appeal in this case because of a flagrantly deficient abstract. McAdams v. Automotive Rentals, Inc., 319 Ark. 254, 891 S.W.2d 52 (1995). We again affirm because of a deficient record and abstract. This case arose from a foreclosure action filed by Twin City Bank against Bobby Joe McAdams (McAdams) and other parties that held liens against McAdams' property. Twin City's mortgage was deemed first in priority and was subsequently assigned to Shelby and Theresa McAdams, the brother and sister-in-law of Bobby Joe McAdams. After a sale was ordered, Shelby and Theresa McAdams purchased the property, giving what they later claimed to be a conditional bid in the amount of $166,960.72. Appellee Automotive Rentals, Inc. (ARI), was deemed second in priority by the chancery court, and therefore entitled to any excess proceeds from the sale of the property. However, the chancellor also determined that McAdams was entitled to a homestead exemption if he proved within five months that he intended to use the excess proceeds to procure another homestead. The McAdamses and ARI appealed; this is the appeal which was dismissed by mandate dated February 28, 1995, because of a deficient abstract. McAdams, supra. Upon remand, the chancellor determined that McAdams had failed to timely prove that he was going to use any excess proceeds towards another homestead, that his homestead exemption would be extinguished and that ARI would therefore be entitled to any excess proceeds. The order was entered on August 9, 1995. The McAdamses now appeal from this order. We must affirm this appeal without reaching the merits. All five arguments advanced by the McAdamses pertain to rulings in the trial court prior to the first appeal. Appellants refer to orders from the prior appeal and record and partially abstract a March 1994 order, however, those orders are not a part of the record on appeal. The burden is on appellant to bring up a record sufficient to show that the trial court was wrong. King v. Younts, 278 Ark. 91, 643 S.W.2d 542 (1982); Armbrust v. Henry, 263 Ark. 98, 562 S.W.2d 598 (1978); A.R.A.P. 6(b). The McAdamses also refer to reports of sale and commissioner's deeds from the prior appeal which have been included as exhibits in this record, however, those reports and deeds are not contained in the McAdamses' 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 court for decision. Davis v. Peebles, 313 Ark. 654, 857 S.W.2d 825 (1993); Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4- 2(a)(6). The reason for the rule, as this court has often explained, is that there is only one record and there are seven judges. It is impractical, and often times impossible, for all seven judges to attempt to pass around the one record, and this court will not do so. Id. It is appellant's burden to present an abstract that sufficiently demonstrates reversible error. Burgess v. Burgess, 286 Ark. 497, 696 S.W.2d 312 (1985). Affirmed. Dudley, J., not participating.