THE GENERAL RULE: An appellant must “substantially comply” with Rule 3(e), which lists the requirements of a Notice of Appeal as follows:

• Specify the party or parties taking the appeal;
• Designate the judgment, decree, or order appealed from;
• Designate the contents of the record on appeal;
• State that the appellant has ordered the transcript and made financial arrangements with the court reporter, as required by Ark. Code Ann. 16-13-510(c);
• State whether the appeal is to the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court, and if it is to the Supreme Court, the basis for the Court’s jurisdiction as provided in Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 1-2(a); and
• State that the appealing party abandons any pending but unresolved claims.

RECENT RULINGS:

In Jackson-Rice v. Rice, 2026 Ark. App. 84 (Feb. 11, 2026), the Court of Appeals ruled that a Notice of Appeal did not substantially comply with the requirements of Rule 3(e) where the notice did not:

• Designate the contents of the record on appeal;
• State that the appellant had ordered the transcript and made financial arrangements with the court reporter; or
• State that the appealing party abandoned any pending but unresolved claims.

In Rutland v. Stewart, 2026 Ark. App. 218 (April 8, 2026), the Court of Appeals ruled that a Notice of Appeal did not substantially comply with the requirements of Rule 3(e) where the notice did not:

• Designate the contents of the record on appeal;
• State that the appellant had ordered the transcript and made financial arrangements with the court reporter;
• State whether the appeal was to the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court; or
• State that the appealing party abandoned any pending but unresolved claims.

NOTEWORTHY TAKEAWAYS:

• The requirement to abandon any pending but unresolved claims in the Notice of Appeal is a relatively new one. We sometimes advise clients to exclude that language, particularly where it is not in their interest to abandon pending claims. Jackson states that it is error to exclude that waiver language. That error standing alone probably would not warrant dismissal of an appeal (assuming the appellant met the other requirements of Rule 3(e)). Nonetheless, it should give us pause.
  
•  In Rutland, the Notice of Appeal listed the order of dismissal as the only order from which the appeal was taken. The Court of Appeals stated that the Notice also should have listed the deemed denial of the Appellant’s new-trial motion since it was evident from the appellant’s brief that she intended to raise arguments on appeal that she had raised in her new-trial motion.
  

In Rothwell v. Rothwell, 2025 Ark. App. 613, the Court of Appeals considered whether an issue that became apparent in the circuit court’s final order was preserved for appeal when it was not raised in the appellant’s posttrial motion for reconsideration or new trial.

RESULT: On rehearing, the Court of Appeals “declined to hold that [an appellant’s] failure to object in the posttrial motion precludes him from raising the issue on appeal[.]” Id. at 26. In other words, if the appellant files a post-judgment (Rule 59 or Rule 60) motion, he or she is not required to include every appealable issue that was raised by the court’s final order.

REASONING:

• The Supreme Court has consistently said that posttrial motions are optional. It is not necessary to file a posttrial motion to preserve an issue for appeal that appeared in the circuit court’s final order or judgment. Harrell v. City of Conway, 296 Ark. 247, 249, 753 S.W.2d 542, 543 (1988).
  
• If a posttrial motion is not necessary to preserve an issue for appeal, then it should not be the case that an appellant could waive an issue by failing to raise it in his or her posttrial motion.
  
  THIS CASE IS NOTEWORTHY BECAUSE:
  
• Before the rehearing, the Court of Appeals ruled that “a party who files [a posttrial] motion and fails to include an argument that could be addressed by the circuit court has not raised the issue at the earliest opportunity and therefore has waived the issue.”
  
• The final opinion includes a dissent by Judge Wendy Wood, advocating for such a rule: “Although I recognize that a party is not generally required to raise issues in a posttrial motion in order to preserve them for appeal, a party who files such a motion specifically challenging the circuit court’s order creates an opportunity to bring all issues regarding the order to the attention of the circuit court.” (Emphasis in original).

FINAL THOUGHTS: Be careful with posttrial motions! The Court’s waiver rules are ever evolving. Before firing off a posttrial motion, take a good look at the appealable issues and draft the motion with the appeal in mind.