Court Opinion

ID: 9964914
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-01 14:02:54.524309+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:47.757693
License: Public Domain

Cite as 2024 Ark. App. 290
                    ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
                                        DIVISION III
                                        No. CV-22-469

CLIFFORD W. CHRISTIAN AND                      Opinion Delivered May 1, 2024
KAREN D. CHRISTIAN
                                               APPEAL FROM THE BOONE COUNTY
                                               CIRCUIT COURT
                            APPELLANTS         [NO. 05CV-17-363]

V.                                             HONORABLE JOHNNIE A.
                                               COPELAND, JUDGE
SWO PROPERTIES, INC.,
AN ARKANSAS CORPORATION
DOING BUSINESS IN BOONE
COUNTY, ARKANSAS

                                APPELLEE       REBRIEFING ORDERED

                        STEPHANIE POTTER BARRETT, Judge

       Appellants Clifford W. Christian and Karen D. Christian (“Christians”) appeal the

decision of the Boone County Circuit Court in favor of SWO Properties, Inc. (“SWO”),

finding them in contempt for failure to vacate the subject property on February 1, 2021. We

do not reach the merits of their arguments at this time and must order rebriefing.

       The Christians filed a brief incorrectly titled “Abstract, Appellant’s Corrected Brief

and Addendum.”1 The Christians and SWO both failed to comply with the briefing

       1
        Our supreme court has changed the briefing rules for appeals involving an electronic
record. In re Acceptance of Records on Appeal in Elec. Format & Elimination of the Abstracting &
Addendum Requirements, 2019 Ark. 213 (per curiam); In re Acceptance of Records on Appeal in
Elec. Format & Elimination of the Abstracting & Addendum Requirements, 2020 Ark. 421 (per
requirements in their statement of facts. Although the issue was not raised by either party,

we cannot reach the merits of this case because of a failure to comply with the rules governing

appeals. The court may raise issues of deficiencies sua sponte. Branscumb v. Freeman, 357

Ark. 644, 187 S.W.3d 846 (2004).

       Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(6) 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.

       While only the appellant’s brief is required to contain a statement of the case, the

appellee’s brief may contain a statement of the case if there are necessary facts to understand

the case the appellee believes were not included in the appellant’s brief. However, if the

appellee provides a statement of the case, it, too, must comply with Rule 4-2(a)(6). Here,

neither the Christians’ brief nor SWO’s brief was compliant with Rule 4-2(a)(6) because both

briefs contain arguments in their statement of the facts and leave little room for information

necessary to understand the case and decide the issues on appeal.

       The Christians’ statement of the case further fails to cite the page numbers of the

appellate record where material, factual information relevant to review may be found.

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

curiam). The filing of an abstract and addendum is no longer required pursuant to Arkansas
Supreme Court Rule 3-3.

                                              2
overlook counsel’s failure to comply with the rule. Accordingly, we order the appellants’

counsel to file a substituted brief on behalf of the Christians, curing any deficiencies within

thirty days from the date of this opinion. The list of deficiencies we have noted are not to

be taken as exhaustive, and we encourage the appellants’ counsel to carefully examine the

record and review our rules before resubmitting a brief. Upon the filing of a substituted

brief, the counsel for SWO will have thirty days from that date to file a substituted appellee

brief.

         Rebriefing ordered.

         HARRISON, C.J., and VIRDEN, J., agree.

         Teresa J. Olson, for appellants.

         Watson Law Firm of Harrison, by: Rick E. Watson, for appellee.

                                               3