Title: Porter v. Porter

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

Kathy PORTER v. Larry PORTER

97-228                                             ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                 Opinion delivered June 9, 1997


1.   Appeal & error -- abstract is record for purposes of appellate
     review -- burden is on appealing party to provide both record
     and abstract sufficient for review. -- The abstract is the
     record for purposes of appeal; section (a)(6) of the Arkansas
     Supreme Court Rules is violated when there are no references
     to the pages of an abstract and only transcript citations are
     supplied to the court; a transcript will not be examined to
     reverse a lower court; the burden is clearly placed on the
     appealing party to provide both a record and an abstract
     sufficient for appellate review; issues unsupported by
     convincing argument or authority will not be considered by the
     supreme court, nor will the court entertain an argument when
     it cannot be determined from the abstract what arguments were
     made to the lower court. 

2.   Appeal & error -- contents and purpose of abstract -- supreme
     court may affirm for noncompliance when abstract is flagrantly
     deficient. -- Rule 4-2(a)(6) of the Arkansas Supreme Court
     clearly requires that the abstract should contain "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"; the purpose of an
     abstract is to give the supreme court an understanding of the
     issues on appeal and the court may affirm for noncompliance
     with the rule when there is a flagrantly deficient abstract.

3.   Appeal & error -- abstract flagrantly deficient -- case
     affirmed. -- Where appellant failed to cite to her abstract at
     any point in her argument, the record in the case was 906
     pages and was bound in seven volumes, and the abstract was not
     quite five pages long and did not provide any testimony,
     authority, or documentation or even show that appellant
     disagreed with the chancellor's findings, the record as
     abstracted was insufficient to demonstrate error; appellant
     was procedurally barred on all three issues; the case was
     affirmed.


     Appeal from Arkansas Chancery Court; Russell Rogers,
Chancellor; affirmed.
     Daggett, Van Dover & Donovan & Perry, PLLC, by:  Doddridge M.
Daggett, for appellant. 
     Green & Henry, by:  David G. Henry, and Carl J. Madsen, for
appellee.

     Ray Thornton, Justice.
     Kathy and Larry Porter, appellant and appellee, respectively,
were married in the early 1970's and moved into a home owned by
appellee's father, J.W. Porter, where they resided during the
entire course of their marriage.  During the marriage, appellee's
father incorporated Porter's Seed Cleaning, Inc.  All of the 100
outstanding shares in the corporation were initially issued to
appellee's father.  He retained fifty-one shares and gave twenty-
five shares to appellee and twenty-four shares to his wife,
appellee's mother.
     Appellee filed a complaint for divorce against appellant on
February 28, 1995.  Appellant counterclaimed for divorce, and on
January 2, 1996, the chancellor granted the divorce on appellant's
counterclaim.  Appellant claims error in three points of the
property division.
     First, appellant contends that the increase in value of
appellee's twenty-five shares of stock in Porter's Seed Cleaning,
Inc., is marital property in which she has an interest.  Second,
appellant complains that the trial court should have awarded her
the dollar value of one-half of her husband's interest in a closely
held corporation,  Jay-Lynn Farming, Inc., rather than awarding her
one-half of his stock ownership.  For her third point, appellant
claims that she should have been awarded a marital interest in the
increased value of the farm house in which she resided based on the
worth of the home when she first moved into it subtracted from the
worth of the home at the time of the divorce.     
       We cannot determine from the abstract whether the chancellor
was presented with evidence of the value of the 25 shares of gift
stock in Porter's Seed Cleaning, Inc., at the time of the divorce,
and no evidence was abstracted to reflect that this was not a gift. 
We also cannot determine from the abstract whether evidence was
presented to the trial court to establish the value of the closely
held corporation, Jay-Lynn Farming, Inc., nor do we find that this
issue was properly preserved for appeal.  Finally no evidence was
abstracted which would challenge the determination that the farm
house belonged at all times to appellee's father, and that all
improvements to this property were paid for by the father.  
     It is well established that the abstract is the record for
purposes of appeal.  Allen v. Routon, 57 Ark. App. 137, ___ S.W.2d
___ (1997).  We have recently held that section (a)(6) of the
Arkansas Supreme Court Rules is violated when there are no
references to the pages of an abstract and only transcript
citations were supplied to the court.  Sanders v. State, 317 Ark.
328,