Case Name: Francis BAKER v. Rebecca BAKER
Court: Arkansas Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Arkansas
Decision Date: 1993-07-07
Citations: 43 Ark. App. 56
Docket Number: CA 92-1014
Parties: Francis BAKER v. Rebecca BAKER
Judges: Mayfield, J., dissents.
Reporter: Arkansas Appellate Reports
Volume: 43
Pages: 56–60

Head Matter:
Francis BAKER v. Rebecca BAKER
CA 92-1014
858 S.W.2d 157
Court of Appeals of Arkansas
Opinion delivered July 7, 1993
Ralph J. Blagg, for appellant.
No brief filed for appellee.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This is the second motion to dismiss this appeal filed by the appellee in this case. In her first motion to dismiss, the appellee urged us to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that the appellant designated the entire record as the record on appeal, but failed to order the entire record as designated. In our per curiam of January 6,1993, we denied that motion to dismiss but granted the appellee ten days to designate additional portions of the record. In her present motion, the appellee asserts that, although she designated additional testimony pursuant to our per curiam and to Ark. R. App. P. 6(b), the appellant did not order the additional testimony from the court reporter. The appellant concedes that he did not order the additional testimony, but argues that his failure to do so is excused because he raised only one issue on appeal, and the additional material designated by the appellee could not be relevant to that issue.
The rule applicable to this case was enunciated by the Arkansas Supreme Court in Arkansas Farmers Association v. Townes, 232 Ark. 997, 342 S.W.2d 83 (1961):
In short, we hold that, in the absence of a court order to the contrary, the appellant must file in this Court the record designated by both parties or suffer the appeal to be dismissed for failure to file a designated record and appellant cannot, on his own determination, cast on appel-lee the burden of paying for the additional record designated.
Rule 6 of the Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure mandates that the appellant shall direct the court reporter to include in the transcript all testimony designated by the appellee. This rule was promulgated by the Supreme Court and, even should we wish to change it, we would lack the authority to do so. Therefore, because the appellant admits that he failed to order the additional record as designated by the appellee, and in the absence of any application for an adjustment of costs or other protective order by the appellant, we are constrained to dismiss his appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
Mayfield, J., dissents.