Court Opinion

ID: 9639026
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 16:01:38.777599+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:43:55.730028
License: Public Domain

Josephine Linker Hart, Judge, concurring. I agree that this case should be affirmed. However, I write separately because I wish to emphasize my belief that the appellant’s argument is unavailing. If this were a case where the trial court neglected or refused to make a verbatim record of a hearing, our case law is clear that the case must be reversed, even if an appellant failed to make a contemporaneous objection. In Mattocks v. Mattocks, 66 Ark. App. 77, 986 S.W.2d 890 (1999), we interpreted the supreme court’s Administrative Order No. 4 to require that we reverse a case where the trial judge failed to make a record of in camera proceedings despite the appellant’s apparent acquiescence to the practice at the hearing. Likewise, in George v. State, 356 Ark. 345, 151 S.W.3d 770 (2004), the supreme court remanded the case when no verbatim record of a proceeding was made. Moreover, I do not believe that Argo v. Buck, 59 Ark. App. 182, 954 S.W.2d 949 (1997), the case that the majority relies on, would compel a different result. In Buck, the court of appeals affirmed when the appellant failed to ensure that deficiencies in the transcript were rectified prior to the case being submitted on appeal. Certainly Mattocks and George do not annul the maxim that it is the appellant’s duty to bring up a record that demonstrates error. This case differs from Mattocks and George because appellant is unwilling to establish whether or not a hearing was even held. From the record, it appears likely that there was no hearing to record. I believe that a fair reading of the transcript indicates that this case involved the entry of a default judgment, and apparently no effort was made to set the default judgment aside, as provided for in Rule 55 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. Similarly, I am troubled by the fact that the trial court awarded $5,000 in attorney feees without the submission of a fee petition, as required by Rule 54(e) of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. However, I agree with the majority that this argument was not presented either to the trial court or to this court on appeal, and therefore it obviously cannot support reversal of this case. Finally, regarding the trial judge’s threat to summarily impose a 180-day sentence for future contempt, I believe this rare display ofjudicial intemperance communicates a bias on the part of the trial judge that should support a recusal motion in the event that the appellant is summoned to appear at some time in the future. Nonetheless, I agree with the majority that, because it involves only a possible future cause of action, it is not ripe for our consideration.