Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 562 

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION III

No. CV-16-107

LESTER FULMER, ROB BENTLEY, 

ROBERT BEST, AND CARL CHILSON

APPELLANTS

V.

WILLIAM HURT, MICHAEL HOOVER, 

AND MOBILITY LIFT SYSTEMS, LLC

APPELLEES

OPINION DELIVERED: NOVEMBER 30, 2016

APPEAL FROM THE CLEBURNE

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. 12-CV-12-177-4]

HONORABLE TIM WEAVER, 

JUDGE

REBRIEFING ORDERED

ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Chief Judge

 Appellants Lester Fulmer, Rob Bentley, Robert Best, and Carl Chilson appeal the 

October 8, 2015 order entered by the Cleburne County Circuit Court granting the motion 

for summary judgment filed on August 3, 2015, by appellees William Hurt, Michael 

Hoover, and Mobility Lift Systems, LLC. On appeal, appellants argue that the trial court 

imposed a higher standard of misconduct by appellees to support piercing the corporate veil 

than is required by Arkansas law. Because of multiple omissions from appellant’s addendum 

and pagination errors in the argument, however, we must order rebriefing at this time. 

An appellant’s addendum is to contain true and legible copies of the nontranscript 

documents in the record on appeal that are essential for the appellate court to confirm its 

jurisdiction, to understand the case, and to decide the issues on appeal. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-

2(a)(8) (2016). The addendum is missing at least two vitally important pleadings: (1) 

appellants’ brief in support of their response to appellees’ motion for summary judgment 
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 562 

2 

and (2) appellees’ reply to appellants’ response to their motion for summary judgment. 

Although appellees filed a supplemental abstract and addendum that consists of multiple 

exhibits to these pleadings, it does not include the actual pleadings. 

 Additionally, appellants fail to include proper page references in the argument section 

of their brief. Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(7) provides that references in the 

argument portion of briefs to material found in the abstract and addendum shall be followed 

by a reference to the page number of the abstract or addendum at which such material may 

be found. Appellant’s argument section contains multiple references to record page numbers 

only, without corresponding abstract or addendum page numbers. Some of those references 

can be matched to documents in appellees’ supplemental addendum or testimony in 

appellees’ supplemental abstract, but others appear to correspond to items not in any 

addendum or abstract currently before us. 

 Two cases from our supreme court reiterate its position on the necessary compliance 

with Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(8)(A)(i) and appellants’ burden to provide a 

record, abstract, addendum, and brief that allows us to understand the case and decide the 

issues presented on appeal. See Dachs v. Hendrix, 2009 Ark. 322, 320 S.W.3d 645; Meyer v. 

CDI Contractors, LLC, 2009 Ark. 115, 313 S.W.3d 519. In accord with our requirement 

that the party rebrief where essential materials have been omitted from the abstract and 

addendum, we allow appellants fifteen days from the date of this opinion in which to file a 

substituted brief, abstract, and addendum to cure any and all deficiencies, at their own 

expense. See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4–2(b)(3). We encourage appellants to carefully and 

thoroughly review our rules to ensure that no additional deficiencies are present, and we 
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 562 

3 

caution that if they fail to file a complying brief, abstract, and addendum within the 

prescribed time, the judgment may be affirmed for noncompliance with the rules. Id. 

 Rebriefing ordered. 

 KINARD and HIXSON, JJ., agree. 

Richard Mays Law Firm, PLLC, by: Richard H. Mays, for appellants. 

Womack Phelps Puryear Mayfield & McNeil, P.A., by: Jeffrey W. Puryear and Ryan M. 

Wilson, for appellees.