Title: Oliver v. Washington County Arkansas

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

William B. OLIVER v. WASHINGTON COUNTY
ARKANSAS

96-381                                             ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                 Opinion delivered April 7, 1997


1.   Appeal & error -- record on appeal limited to that which is
     abstracted -- transcript will not be examined to reverse trial
     court. -- A summary of the pleadings and the judgment appealed
     from are the bare essentials of an abstract; the burden is
     clearly placed on the appealing party to provide both a record
     and abstract sufficient for appellate review; the record on
     appeal is limited to that which is abstracted; the supreme
     court will not examine the transcript of a trial to reverse a
     trial court; however, it will do so to affirm; there is only
     one transcript, there are seven judges on the supreme court,
     and it is impossible for each of the seven judges to examine
     the one transcript.
 
2.   Appeal & error -- abstract flagrantly deficient -- judgment od
     trial court affirmed. -- Where appellants failed to abstract 
     (1) their complaint in the Washington County Circuit Court and
     request for a trial de novo; (2) the order denying the motion
     for summary judgment; (3) their orally renewed motion for
     summary judgment in which they properly questioned, for the
     first time, the constitutionality of Ark. Code Ann.  14-298-
     120 to 122, and their arguments in support of the renewed
     motion; (4) the testimony at trial; (5) the November 21, 1995,
     final judgment from which they appealed; and (6) the notice of
     appeal filed on December 19, 1995, appellants failed to comply
     with Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2; the abstract was flagrantly
     deficient, and thus the judgment was affirmed.


     Appeal from Washington Circuit Court; Kim M. Smith, Judge;
affirmed.
     Law Offices of Ronald E. Bumpass, by:  Bradley S. Lewis, for
appellants. 
     George E. Butler, Jr. and Stockland & Trantham, P.A., by: 
Gary L. Seymour, for appellee. 

     Annabelle Clinton Imber, Justice.
     This is an appeal from the Washington County Court's
condemnation of land owned by the appellants, William and Georgia
Oliver, for the widening of County Road #55.  On appeal, the
Olivers argue that the County did not adhere to the statutory
procedures for condemning their property, and that several
provisions of the condemnation statute are unconstitutional.  We
affirm because the appellants's abstract is flagrantly deficient.
     On February 1, 1995, the Washington County Court issued an
order whereby it condemned a parcel of land owned by William and
Georgia Oliver for the widening of County Road #55.  The County
Court served notice of the condemnation upon the Olivers within ten
days of the date of entry of the order as required by Ark. Code
Ann.  14-298-120(f) (1987).  The Olivers received the notice and
filed a response. On March 9, 1995, the County Court denied the
relief requested by the Olivers.  
     Before the County Court determined the appropriate measure of
compensation, the Olivers filed a de novo appeal in the Washington
County Circuit Court.  In their complaint for trial de novo and
motion for injunction, the Olivers alleged that the appeal-bond
requirement violated their constitutional rights to due process,
that the County failed to follow the condemnation procedures
contained in Ark. Code Ann.  14-298-101 to 116 (1987), and that
the condemnation procedures in Ark. Code Ann. 
 14-298-101 to 116 (1987) violate the separation-of-powers
doctrine.  The Olivers's complaint, however, is not included in the
abstract.  The Olivers also contended at a later hearing that the
condemnation procedures set forth in Ark. Code Ann.  14-298-120
to 121 (1987) violate the separation-of-powers doctrine.
     At the conclusion of a hearing on the motion for summary
judgment filed by the Olivers, the trial court found that the
County Court condemned the property pursuant to the procedures
mandated by Ark. Code Ann.  14-298-120 to 122, and thus the court
declined to address the Olivers's arguments regarding sections 14-
298-101 to 116.  Moreover, the trial court ruled that the Olivers
failed to demonstrate how the county judge's dual roles caused him
to be unduly influenced in the condemnation proceeding.  Finally,
the trial court acknowledged that the Olivers failed to notify the
Attorney General's Office, as required by Ark. Code Ann.  16-111-
106(b) (Repl. 1994), of their constitutional challenge to sections
120 to 122.  For these reasons, the court denied the Olivers's
motion for summary judgment.  Although the abstract contains the
trial court's letter opinion, the Olivers failed to abstract the
actual order denying the motion for summary judgment.
      Prior to the jury trial, the Olivers properly notified the
Attorney General's Office of their intention to constitutionally
challenge sections 14-298-120 to 122.  Based upon the contents of
an order entered on November 1, 1995, it appears that on the day of
trial, October 25, 1995, the Olivers orally renewed their motion
for summary judgment. However, the Olivers failed to abstract the
orally renewed motion for summary judgment and the arguments
presented in support of the renewed motion.  The court denied the
Olivers's renewed motion in the order filed on November 1, 1995,
and the case proceeded to trial.  There is no abstract of the
testimony at trial, or of the final judgment entered on November
21, 1995.  The Olivers filed a notice of appeal from the final
judgment entered on November 21, 1995, but they failed to abstract
the notice of appeal.
     In summary, the Olivers failed to abstract the following:  1)
their complaint in the Washington County Circuit Court and request
for a trial de novo; 2) the order denying the motion for summary
judgment; 3) their orally renewed motion for summary judgment in
which they properly questioned, for the first time, the
constitutionality of Ark. Code Ann.  14-298-120 to 122, and their
arguments in support of the renewed motion; 4) the testimony at
trial; 5) the November 21, 1995 final judgment from which they
appealed; and 6) the notice of appeal filed on December 19, 1995. 

     This court has repeatedly held that a summary of the pleadings
and the judgment appealed from are the bare essentials of an
abstract.  McPeek v. White River Lodge Enters., 325 Ark. 68, 924 S.W.2d 456 (1996); King v. State, 325 Ark. 313, 925 S.W.2d 159
(1996).   The burden is clearly placed on the appealing party to
provide both a record and abstract sufficient for appellate review. 
Cosgrove v. City of West Memphis, 327 Ark. 324, ___ S.W.2d ___
(1996).  We have often written that the record on appeal is limited
to that which is abstracted.  Allen v. State, 326 Ark. 541, 932 S.W.2d 764 (1996).  We will not examine the transcript of a trial
to reverse a trial court.  However, we will do so to affirm. 
Haynes v. State, 314 Ark. 354,