Opinion ID: 1507962
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dismissal of Dr. Yelvington

Text: We turn next to the dismissal of Dr. Yelvington. Ms. Hackelton asserts that Dr. Yelvington was properly made a party in this case on October 20, 1997, when she filed an addendum to her amended complaint that named Dr. Yelvington as a party defendant in the caption of the action. According to her assertions, under Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a), the title of the action shall include the names of all the parties. She reasons that this court's case law also supports her argument that in order for a person to be made a party to a lawsuit, his or her name must be included in the caption of the case. Because October 20, 1997, was the first time she included Dr. Yelvington as a party in the caption of the case, she claims that this is the date when he was formally made a party to the lawsuit. Hence, she contends that it is from this date that the 120-day period for service in Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i) began to run. She further notes that Dr. Yelvington actually admitted this in his September 26, 2002, Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, where he alleged that [b]y addendum to Amended Complaint, filed of record on October 20, 1997, Dr. Dennis Yelvington was added as a party defendant. Ms. Hackelton adds that it was not until January of 2003 that Dr. Yelvington changed his position and claimed he was made a party defendant on October 15, 1997. Dr. Malloy responds that Ms. Hackelton is raising the caption argument under Rule 10(a) for the first time on appeal. We agree. After scouring the record in this case, we find no argument based on Rule 10(a) that was made to the trial court relative to Dr. Yelvington. Nor do we find where the admission argument about when Dr. Yelvington was added as a party defendant was made to the trial court. It is elementary that this court will not consider arguments made by an appellant for the first time on appeal. Rhuland v. Fahr, 356 Ark. 382, 155 S.W.3d 2 (2004). We will not do so because it is incumbent on the parties to raise arguments initially to the trial court to give that court an opportunity to consider them. Hubbard v. Univ. of Arkansas Med. Sciences, 272 Ark. 500, 616 S.W.2d 10 (1981). Otherwise, this court would be placed in the position of reversing a trial court for reasons never presented to that court. Blaylock v. Strecker, 291 Ark. 340, 724 S.W.2d 470 (1987). We will not do this. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court in the dismissal of Dr. Yelvington from this action. Affirmed in part. Reversed in part and remanded. GLAZE and IMBER, JJ., concur.