Cite as 2023 Ark. 159

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

No. CV-22-600

JEREMY COOK AND RONNIE HEDGE

APPELLANTS

V.

THE MOST WORSHIPFUL GRAND

LODGE, FREE AND ACCEPTED 

MASONS OF THE STATE OF 

ARKANSAS, AND ITS MASONIC 

JURISDICTION (GRAND LODGE); 

CARL E. NELSON; ROBERT L. 

JACKSON; BOYD FREEMAN; SAMUEL 

D. LATTIN; GEORGE K. COFFMAN 

(DECEASED); ARNOLD G. HODGE; 

CHARLES H. FERGUSON; MARTIN E. 

WARREN; BILLY JOE HOLDER; 

BRADLEY R. PHILLIPS; GEORGE R. 

FRANKS, JR.; AND CHRIS YOUNG, ALL 

IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES 

AND IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES 

AS OFFICE HOLDERS AND MEMBERS 

OF THE GRAND LODGE; AND JOHN 

DOES 1–25

APPELLEES

Opinion Delivered: November 9, 2023

APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT 

[NO. 60CV-19-605]

HONORABLE WENDELL GRIFFEN, 

JUDGE

COURT OF APPEALS ORDER 

VACATED; MOTION FOR WRIT OF 

CERTIORARI TO COMPLETE THE 

RECORD DENIED; MOTION TO 

DISMISS APPEAL GRANTED.

COURTNEY RAE HUDSON, Associate Justice

Appellants, Jeremy Cook and Ronnie Hedge (Cook), appealed a May 26, 2022 order 

from the Pulaski County Circuit Court dismissing their complaint against the Grand Lodge.

1

1

In his complaint in the circuit court, Cook named as defendants The Most Worshipful 

Grand Lodge, Free and Accepted Masons of the State of Arkansas, and Its Masonic Jurisdiction 

(Grand Lodge); Carl E. Nelson; Robert L. Jackson; Boyd Freeman; Samuel D. Lattin; George 
2

On November 2, 2022, our court of appeals granted the Grand Lodge’s motion to dismiss based 

on Cook’s failure to file a complete record, while at the same time denying Cook’s motion for 

writ of certiorari to complete the record. We granted Cook’s petition for review. Cook argues

that because he could not in good faith file a motion for an extension of time to prepare the 

record, he should be allowed to file as much of the record as possible and move for certiorari 

to complete the record within ninety days. Cook alternatively argues that it would be unjust to 

dismiss the appeal with such a small portion of the record missing. We vacate the court of 

appeals’ order, deny Cook’s motion for writ of certiorari to complete the record, and grant the 

Grand Lodge’s motion to dismiss the appeal.

Cook filed a complaint on January 31, 2019, asserting claims arising from his activities 

as a member of the Grand Lodge. The Grand Lodge filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state 

a claim upon which relief may be granted, and the circuit court held a hearing on January 14, 

2021. On May 26, 2022, the circuit court granted the motion and dismissed the appellants’ 

complaint. The circuit court explained that Cook’s complaint was legally insufficient and that 

it was granting the Grand Lodge’s motion “for the reasons stated on the record during the 

hearing on January 14, 2022[.]”

Cook filed an amended notice of appeal on June 24, 2022. He designated “the complete 

Circuit Court Record, including the transcript of all hearings, and all pleadings and rulings filed 

K. Coffman; Arnold G. Hodge; Charles H. Ferguson; Martin E. Warren; Billy Joe Holder; 

Bradley R. Phillips; George R. Franks, Jr.; and Chris Young, all in their individual capacities 

and in their official capacities as office holders and members of the Grand Lodge; and John Does 

1–25. The defendants in the circuit court action are the appellees herein, and we will refer to 

them collectively as “the Grand Lodge.” 
3

with the Circuit Clerk, as the record on appeal.” He also made arrangements with the court 

reporter to prepare a transcript of the hearing. However, Cook had not received the transcript 

as the deadline to file the record approached. Cook timely filed a record of the pleadings on 

September 22, 2022, but he did not file the transcript or seek an extension of time to do so

from the circuit court pursuant to Rule 5(b)(1) of the Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure—

Civil. That same day, Cook filed a motion for writ of certiorari to complete the record pursuant 

to Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 3-5. Cook’s motion explained that

as of this filing Appellants have not received the [transcript] although inquiry has been 

made about it. See Exhibit A to this Motion. . . Out of an abundance of caution, 

Appellants move for the Court to issue an Order for Certiorari to complete the record 

pursuant to Rule 3-5 of the Arkansas Rules of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals.

Exhibit A was an email chain between Cook’s attorney and court reporter Neva Warford. The 

emails demonstrate that on the day that Cook filed the appeal, his attorney contacted Warford

to arrange for preparation of the transcript and the payment thereof. Warford advised Cook’s 

attorney that “[i]t was a short hearing” and would be “about $115 at the most.” Cook’s attorney

sent another email on August 24 indicating that he had spoken with Warford that day and was 

sending the email to her as a “reminder.” Warford did not respond. On September 16, Cook’s 

attorney sent another email inquiring about the status of the transcript and advising Warford 

that the transcript was due the following week. There was no further response from Warford,

and no transcript was filed.

On October 6, 2022, the Grand Lodge filed a motion seeking to dismiss the appeal for 

lack of jurisdiction. The Grand Lodge argued that Cook had failed to avail himself of the 

extensions available pursuant to Rule 5. In response, Cook argued that he could not seek an 
4

extension in good faith because he could not show that an extension was “necessary” as required 

by Rule 5(b)(1)(E). Citing Coggins v. Coggins, 353 Ark. 431, 108 S.W.3d 588 (2003), the court 

of appeals on November 2, 2022, denied Cook’s motion for writ of certiorari to complete the 

record. That syllabus-entry order also granted the Grand Lodge’s motion to dismiss. We granted 

Cook’s petition for review. When we grant a petition for review, we consider the appeal as 

though it had originally been filed in this court. Parsons v. Preferred Family Healthcare, Inc., 2023 

Ark. 56, 662 S.W.3d 654. 

We turn now to Cook’s arguments. Pursuant to Rule 5(a) of the Arkansas Rules of 

Appellate Procedure—Civil, the record must be filed with the clerk of the Arkansas Supreme 

Court within ninety days from the filing of the first notice of appeal, unless the time is extended 

by order of the circuit court as provided in Rule 5(b). Medicanna, LLC v. Ark. Dep’t of Fin. & 

Admin., 2021 Ark. 227. The complete record was not filed, and Cook contends that he could 

not in good faith have filed a motion for an extension because he could not show that more 

time was necessary as required by Rule 5(b)(1)(E). Cook claims that filing such a meritless 

motion would violate his ethical obligations under Rule 11 of the Arkansas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure—Civil. Cook estimates that the transcript should have consisted of about twentytwo pages. In his view, there was “no conceivable reason” why Warford could not complete 

the transcript in three months. Cook therefore insists that any motion arguing that more time 

was necessary would have been frivolous. 

Cook’s appeal requires us to construe our court rules. We construe court rules using the 

same means and canons of construction used to interpret statutes. Tollett v. Wilson, 2020 Ark. 

326, 608 S.W.3d 602. The principal rule of statutory construction is to construe a statute just 
5

as it reads, giving the words their ordinary and usually accepted meaning in common language. 

Id. When the language is plain and unambiguous, there is no need to resort to rules of statutory 

construction, and the analysis need go no further. State ex rel. Rutledge v. Purdue Parma L.P., 

2021 Ark. 133, 624 S.W.3d 106. 

The issue in the instant case presented is whether Cook’s ethical obligations prevented 

him from filing a motion for an extension and consequently from obtaining an extension order 

pursuant to Rule 5(b). Rule 5(b) provides in relevant part:

(1) If any party has designated stenographically reported material for inclusion in 

the record on appeal, the circuit court, by order entered before expiration of the period 

prescribed by subdivision (a) of this rule or a prior extension order, may extend the time 

for filing the record only if it makes the following findings:

. . .

(E) An extension of time is necessary for the court reporter to include the 

stenographically reported material in the record on appeal or for the circuit clerk to 

compile the record.

(2) In no event shall the time be extended more than seven (7) months from the 

date of the filing of the first notice of appeal.

(3) If the appellant has obtained the maximum seven-month extension available 

from the circuit court, or demonstrates (by affidavit or otherwise) an inability to obtain 

entry of an order of extension, then before expiration of the period prescribed by 

subdivision (a) of this rule or a prior extension order, the appellant may file with the 

clerk of the Supreme Court a petition for writ of certiorari pursuant to Rule 3-5 of the 

Rules of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals.

Ark. R. App. P.–Civ. 5(b) (2022). We have said that we expect strict compliance with Rule 5. 

Rose Care, Inc. v. Jones, 355 Ark. 682, 144 S.W.3d 738 (2004): Hickson v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum.

Servs., 357 Ark. 577, 182 S.W.3d 483 (2004). 

Cook’s argument that he could not in good faith seek an extension because the court 
6

reporter should have had enough time to transcribe such a short hearing is misplaced. The 

requirements specified in Rule 5(b)(1)(E) do not address how long it may take a court reporter 

to transcribe a hearing. Instead, the plain language of the rule requires the circuit court to 

determine whether “[a]n extension of time is necessary for the court reporter to include the 

stenographically reported material in the record on appeal[.]” It is axiomatic that if a transcript 

is not available, more time is necessary for the court reporter to “include the transcript in the 

record on appeal[.]” Additionally, Warford’s statement that the hearing was “short” does not in 

any way indicate that she could prepare the transcript within ninety days. In fact, she was 

referring to the expected cost for the transcript—not the time it would take her to finish its 

preparation. Therefore, we disagree with Cook’s argument that an extension was unavailable

because his ethical obligations prevented him from requesting one. Likewise, Cook’s motion 

for writ of certiorari did not demonstrate that he was unable to obtain an extension from the 

circuit court as required by Rule 5(b)(3). Cook’s motion for writ of certiorari merely states that 

he was filing the motion as a precaution because he had not yet received the transcript. Notably, 

it makes no reference to his ethical obligations. Thus, Cook failed to obtain an extension order 

from the circuit court or demonstrate that he was unable to do so.2

2Although we are not persuaded by Cook’s claim that Coggins, 353 Ark. 431, 108 

S.W.3d 588 mandates the opposite result, we are equally convinced that Coggins does not 

control the outcome of this appeal. Coggins is like this appeal in that it involved issues with 

obtaining a transcript from the court reporter. Both Cook and the appellant in Coggins filed a 

partial record and then sought a writ of certiorari to complete the record instead of requesting 

additional time. However, the appellant in Coggins filed a “scant” partial record and did not 

include all the pleadings, even though the court reporter had no responsibility to secure those 

documents. Here, Cook filed everything except the transcript. These distinctions highlight the 

need for our review and the clarity that a written opinion provides.
7

Cook’s second argument is that it would be unjust to dismiss his appeal because only a 

“short” portion was missing from the record. This argument is refuted by Cook’s own 

designation of the transcript as part of the appellate record. Furthermore, the circuit court’s 

order dismissing the complaint specifically stated that the Grand Lodge’s motion was granted 

“for the reasons stated on the record during the hearing on January 14, 2022[.]” The fact that 

the hearing may have been short does not mean that it was not a necessary part of the designated 

record or that it would be unjust to require its inclusion.

Court of appeals order vacated; motion for writ of certiorari to complete the record 

denied; motion to dismiss appeal granted.

Special Justice TIFFANY BROWN joins.

KEMP, C.J., not participating.

Baker Schulze & Murphy, by: J.G. “Gerry” Schulze, for appellants.

Barber Law Firm, PLLC, by: Adam D. Franks, for appellees.