Court Opinion

ID: 9384861
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-05 14:02:18.291769+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:56.998762
License: Public Domain

Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 195
                   ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
                                        DIVISION I
                                       No. CV-22-275

                                              Opinion Delivered   April 5, 2023
JIMMY DION BARDIN
                             APPELLANT        APPEAL FROM THE ASHLEY
                                              COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
V.                                            [NO. 02CV-20-145]

                                              HONORABLE ROBERT B. GIBSON III,
MARGARET BARDIN                               JUDGE
                               APPELLEE
                                              REBRIEFING ORDERED

                              KENNETH S. HIXSON, Judge

       This is a breach-of-contract case. After a bench trial, the Ashley County Circuit Court

entered an order finding that appellant Jimmy Dion Bardin breached a contract for the

purchase of a mobile home and ordered Jimmy to vacate the property and pay appellee

Margaret Bardin $9451 in damages. On appeal, Jimmy argues that the trial court erred in

construing the parties’ contract and further erred in awarding both liquidated damages and

actual damages. However, because of briefing deficiencies, we are unable to reach the merits

of his arguments at this time and must order rebriefing.

       A notice of appeal in this case was filed on October 6, 2021. The supreme court

made electronic filing of appeals mandatory for cases in which the notice of appeal was filed

on or after June 1, 2021. See In re Acceptance of Records on Appeal in Elec. Format, 2020 Ark.
421 (per curiam). As such, appellant’s counsel correctly filed an electronic brief on behalf

of appellant. However, the brief provided does not contain a sufficient statement of the case.

This is because the statement of the case does not contain the information necessary to

understand the case and decide the issues on appeal. The statement of the case only

identifies this as a breach-of-contract action and briefly sets forth some of the procedural

posture.

       Rule 4-2(a)(6) of the Arkansas Rules of the Supreme Court provides:

       The appellant’s brief shall contain a concise statement of the case and the facts
       without argument. The statement shall identify and discuss all material factual and
       procedural information contained in the record on appeal. Information in the
       appellate record is material if the information is essential to understand the case and
       to decide the issues on appeal. All material information must be supported by
       citations to the pages of the appellate record where the information can be found.

(Emphasis added.) The requirement that a statement of the case be included is not only for

the benefit of this court to understand the case and facts, but the failure to include necessary

facts can also limit appellant’s requested review of any opinion offered by this court. Rule

2-3(h) of the Arkansas Rules of the Supreme Court states, “In no case will a rehearing

petition be granted when it is based upon any fact thought to have been overlooked by the

Court, unless reference has been clearly made to it in the statement of the case and the facts

prescribed by Rule 4-2.”

       Because of the mandatory language used by the supreme court in Rule 4-2, we cannot

overlook appellant’s counsel’s failure to comply with the rule. See Greeno v. State, 2023 Ark.

App. 82; Burns v. State, 2022 Ark. App. 472. Accordingly, we order appellant’s counsel to

                                               2
file a substituted brief on behalf of appellant curing any deficiencies within fifteen days from

the date of this opinion. The deficiencies we have noted are not to be taken as an exhaustive

list, and we encourage appellant’s counsel to carefully examine the record and review our

rules before resubmitting his brief. Upon the filing of a substituted brief, the appellee will

be afforded an opportunity to revise or supplement her brief in the time prescribed by the

clerk.

         Rebriefing ordered.

         KLAPPENBACH and WOOD, JJ., agree.

         Hamilton & Hamilton, PLLC, by: James A. Hamilton, for appellant.

         The Ray Law Firm, by: Michael D. Ray, for appellee.

                                               3