June 2026 Final Rule Changes

July 20, 2026 ~ Tory Lewis

On June 4 of this year, the Arkansas Supreme Court made one, noteworthy change to the Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure that directly implicates appeals:

Ark. R. App. P. (Civ.) 3(f), 4(a), & 6(b): Under the amended rules, the notice of appeal or cross-appeal need not be served on opposing counsel in a manner that requires signed receipt. (In other words, electronic service is sufficient.) And the time for designating additional parts of the record and for filing a cross-appeal begins to run from the date the notice of appeal is filed rather than from the date it is received by opposing counsel. These amendments square the rules with the realities of electronic filing. https://opinions.arcourts.gov/ark/supremecourt/en/524502/1/document.do

The following rule changes do not directly implicate appeals but are noteworthy in their own respect:
Ark. R. Civ. P. 6(d): The three-day mailbox rule, which adds three business days to the prescribed period for filing a pleading or motion, now expressly applies to filings that are served via the court’s electronic filing system (eFlex). https://opinions.arcourts.gov/ark/supremecourt/en/524504/1/document.do
Ark. R. Civ. P. 26: Rule 26 has been rewritten to provide that discovery must be “proportional” to the needs of the case and to modify the procedure for asserting claims of privilege or work-product protection. https://opinions.arcourts.gov/ark/supremecourt/en/524501/1/document.do
Ark. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(4): Rule 4 has been modified to make it easier to serve an incarcerated person. https://opinions.arcourts.gov/ark/supremecourt/en/524500/1/document.do

A Proper Notice of Appeal: Rule 3(e) & Recent Rulings

May 26, 2026 ~ Tory Lewis

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.

Preservation and Posttrial Motions

May 13, 2026May 8, 2026 ~ Tory Lewis

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.