Court Opinion

ID: 9896099
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-09 16:03:59.667666+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:06.865415
License: Public Domain

Cite as 2023 Ark. 159
                SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
                                      No. CV-22-600

                                               Opinion Delivered: November 9, 2023

 JEREMY COOK AND RONNIE HEDGE
                    APPELLANTS
                                               APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
 V.                                            COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
                                               [NO. 60CV-19-605]
 THE MOST WORSHIPFUL GRAND
 LODGE, FREE AND ACCEPTED                      HONORABLE WENDELL GRIFFEN,
 MASONS OF THE STATE OF                        JUDGE
 ARKANSAS, AND ITS MASONIC
 JURISDICTION (GRAND LODGE);
 CARL E. NELSON; ROBERT L.                     COURT OF APPEALS ORDER
 JACKSON; BOYD FREEMAN; SAMUEL                 VACATED; MOTION FOR WRIT OF
 D. LATTIN; GEORGE K. COFFMAN                  CERTIORARI TO COMPLETE THE
 (DECEASED); ARNOLD G. HODGE;                  RECORD DENIED; MOTION TO
 CHARLES H. FERGUSON; MARTIN E.                DISMISS APPEAL GRANTED.
 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

                      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
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.”

                                                2
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

                                               3
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 twenty-

two 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

                                                 4
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

                                                5
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

       2
         Although 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.

                                                6
       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.

                                                7