Category: Appellate Practice News

Denial of Motion to Intervene in a Dependency-Neglect Matter is Not Governed by Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 6-9

~ Tasha C. Taylor

The Arkansas Supreme Court defined the issue in Schubert v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2009 Ark. 596 (Dec. 3, 2009), as whether an appeal from the denial of a motion to intervene in a dependency-neglect matter is governed by Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 6-9 or whether it falls under Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure-Civil 2(a)(2).  Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 6-9 was adopted in 2006 as a Rule governing appeals only in dependency-neglect cases.  The rules for taking an appeal from a decision in a dependency-neglect cases vary from other appeals that may be appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court pursuant to Rule 2 of the Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure-Civil.

The Court held that “the denial of a motion to intervene in a dependency-neglect matter is not governed by Rule 6-9,” but is instead governed by Rule 2(a)(2).

The determination of which rule applied significantly impacted that case where the appellants had failed to sign the notice of appeal along with their attorney.  That is because Rule 6-9(b)(1)(B) provides that “[t]he notice of appeal and designation of record shall be signed by the appellant, if an adult, and appellant’s counsel.”  Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure–Civil 2(a)(2), however, includes no such signature requirement for the appellants.

The Arkansas Supreme Court concluded that because the appeal was “governed by Rule 2(a)(2), the [appellants’] failure to sign the notice of appeal was not a fatal defect[.]”

Failure to Sign Complaint Does Not Render Service of Process Defective

~ Tasha C. Taylor

The Arkansas Supreme Court has recently held that there is no signature requirement in Rule 4 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure that would require a complaint to be signed. See Jones v. Turner, 2009 Ark. 545 (Nov. 5, 2009).  As such, an unsigned complaint served with  proper summons does not render service of process defective.  For more analysis of this decision, visit the Downtown Lawyer legal blog.

Appellate Court Rule Changes Effective January 1, 2010

~ Tasha C. Taylor ~ 3 Comments

The Arkansas Supreme Court handed down a per curiam decision on October 29, 2009, that makes several changes to various Arkansas Supreme Court Rules.  Two  significant changes include: (1) the change in the font size for appellate briefs to 14 points and (2) the change in the page length for opening briefs to 30 pages.  Note that there is no change to the limit of 15 pages for an appellant’s reply brief.

Justice Danielson, concurring in the per curiam decision, expresses his hope that the enforcement of the Court’s rules is made a high priority.

View the per curiam here to read the  full text of the new Arkansas Supreme Court Rules rules that take effect January 1, 2010.

Justice Imber to Retire from the Arkansas Supreme Court at the End of 2009

~ Tasha C. Taylor ~ 2 Comments

Arkansas Business reports that Justice Imber plans to retire at the end of the year.

Gov. Mike Beebe on Thursday announced that Imber plans to retire on Jan. 1, one year before her term on the court ends. Beebe’s office said she informed him of the decision Wednesday and said she cited personal reasons and a wish to pursue new service opportunities.

Beebe did not say who he would appoint to serve the final year of Imber’s term. The governor praised her as a “thoughtful” judge. Imber has served on the court since 1997.

For the full story, follow this link.

Legislative Changes to Appellate Court Filing Fees are Effective July 1, 2009

~ Tasha C. Taylor

The Arkansas Supreme Court posted a reminder yesterday that the “Court Technology Improvement Act of 2009” (ACT 328 (HB 1353)) will go into effect next week, on July 1, 2009.

Pursuant to the Act, the Supreme Court Clerk is permitted to charge the following fees:

• A fee of $150.00 for a certified question from a federal court;

• A fee of $25.00 for each petition for rehearing filed;

• A “court technology fee” of $15.00 for every civil action or misdemeanor case filed in either the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court.

• The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall be paid by the appellant a fee of $150.00 in all civil actions and misdemeanor cases.

• The $150.00 filing fee and the $15.00 “court technology fee” shall be remitted in one sum of $165.00.

• These fees go into effect on July 1, 2009.

Arkansas Supreme Court Proposes Rule Changes as Possible Solution to Brief Deficiencies

~ Tasha C. Taylor ~ 2 Comments

The per curiam handed down by the Arkansas Supreme Court on June 4, 2009—In Re: Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Rules 4-1 and 4-2–voices the Court’s frustration with deficiencies in appellate briefs that have been filed over the past few years:

Two years ago, this court highlighted problems relating to attorneys’ failure to comply with the rules for appellate briefs. In re Appellate Practice Concerning Defective Briefs, 369 Ark. App’x 553 (2007). Our warning apparently went unheeded. We continue to have to order rebriefing. In the 2006-07 court term, we ordered rebriefing in eleven cases, in the 2007-08 term, nine, and thus far in the current term, nineteen. In an attempt to aid appellate attorneys, we asked our Committee on Civil Practice to review Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Rule 4-2, which governs the contents of briefs, abstracts and addendums, and to submit a special and expedited report suggesting amendments to the rule.

The Committee has discharged its assignment. We have reviewed the Committee’s work and have made some revisions of our own. . . . 

The Court’s proposed changes to Rules 4-1 and 4-2 include the following:

  • A change to the font size for briefs from 12 points to 13 points;
  • More guidance concerning the content of abstracts;
  • Requirement that a court reporter “shall provide the appellant at a nominal charge an electronic copy of the transcript;”
  • More guidance concerning the contents of addendums;
  • Requirement that brief covers must now include the facsimile numbers and e-mail addresses of the attorneys preparing the briefs.

Perhaps the most significant changes are those proposed rule changes concerning brief deficiencies.

In its 2007 per curiam decision, In re Appellate Practice Concerning Defective Briefs, the Court warned that it might return to its former rule of affirmance based on deficient briefs:

Six years ago, this court amended its Supreme Court Rules to eliminate the harshness of an affirmance based on deficient appellate briefs. With this current raft of nonconforming briefs, and the time wasted and expense incurred, this court may be forced in the near future to return to its former rule of affirmance.

The Court’s 2009 per curiam proposes the following addition to Rule 4-2: “When an abstract or addendum is insufficient, the appellate court shall not go to the record to affirm or reverse the trial court’s decision.” In Re: Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Rules 4-1 and 4-2.

The Court’s proposed rules provide for sanctions for attorneys who have been given the opportunity to cure deficiencies, but fail to do so: 

(c) Noncompliance. (1) Briefs not in compliance with the format required in Rules 4-1 and 4-2 shall not be accepted for filing by the Clerk. When a party submits a noncompliant brief on time that substantially complies with the these Rrules governing briefs, the Clerk shall mark the brief “tendered,” grant the party a seven-day compliance extension, and return the brief to the party for correction. If the party resubmits a compliant brief within seven (7) calendar days, then the Clerk shall accept that brief for filing on the date it is received.   

(2) If after a brief has been accepted for filing, it is determined that an appellee’s brief is deficient or an appellant’s brief is deficient in areas not addressed in Rule 4-2(b)(3), the court may give the party fifteen days to cure the noncompliance under the procedure described in Rule 4-2 (b)(3). If the problem is not timely corrected, then the court will take appropriate action, including affirming the judgment or decree at cost to the appellant, or otherwise giving judgment according to the requirements of the case.

(3) After the opportunity to cure deficiencies has been afforded pursuant to Rule 4-2(b)(3) or (c)(2), attorneys who fail to comply with the requirements of this rule shall be referred to the Office of Professional Conduct, and in addition, may be subject to any of the following: (A) contempt, (B) suspension of the privilege to practice before the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals for a specified time or until the attorney can demonstrate a satisfactory competency of the rules, or (C) imposition of any of the sanctions listed in Rule 11(c) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure-Civil.

In Re: Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Rules 4-1 and 4-2, (June 4, 2009) (emphasis added).

For a complete list of proposed changes to Rules 4-1 and 4-2, view the Court’s June 4, 2009 per curiam–In Re: Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Rules 4-1 and 4-2.

Anyone wishing to comment on the suggested rule changes must submit your comments before August 1, 2009 to: Leslie W. Steen, Clerk, Supreme Court of Arkansas, Attn.: Civil Procedure Rules, Justice Building, 625 Marshall Street, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201.

Arkansas Court of Appeals Dismisses Case without Prejudice for Lack of Final Order; Court Notes that Only Documents From the Record May be Included in an Appellant’s Addendum

~ Tasha C. Taylor ~ 5 Comments

Today’s unpublished per curiam from the Court of Appeals (en banc)–Bank of the Ozarks v. Jim Wood Co., Case No. CA08-1488–serves as a reminder to practitioners of the necessity of appealing from a final order: 

The finality problem arises because the Bank’s claim against Capital has not been adjudicated, non-suited, or otherwise resolved by the circuit court. Under Ark. R. Civ. P. 54(b), an order that fails to adjudicate all of the claims as to all of the parties is not final for purposes of appeal. Although the circuit court may direct entry of a final judgment as to fewer than all of the parties by executing a Rule 54(b) certificate, that was not done here. In the absence of a final order, we must dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See generally Hodges v. Huckabee, 333 Ark. 247, 968 S.W.2d 619 (1998).

The Court dismissed the appeal without prejudice.

In addition to the lack of a final order, the Court noted that the appellant’s addendum contained documents that were not included in the record on appeal.  The Court’s per curiam also reminds practitioners that Arkansas Appellate Courts do not consider documents included in an appellant’s addendum that are not contained in the record.  See, e.g., Union Pac. R.R. v. Barber, 356 Ark. 268, 149 S.W.3d 325 (2004); Barnett v. Monumental Gen. Ins. Co., 354 Ark. 692, 128 S.W.3d 803 (2003); Clark v. Pine Bluff Civ. Serv. Comm’n, 353 Ark. 810, 120 S.W.3d 541 (2003).

Rule 5-2 Rewritten: (1) Arkansas Becomes First State with Electronic Official Reports; (2) Court Abandons Use of “Unpublished” Decisions

~ Tasha C. Taylor ~ 2 Comments

In today’s per curiam (dated May 28, 2009), the Arkansas Supreme Court announces two significant changes to appellate practice in Arkansas with the adoption of the Court’s new Rule 5-2.

(1) Arkansas Becomes First State with Electronic Official Reports
First, “effective July 1, 2009, the electronic version of appellate decisions posted on the Arkansas Judiciary website will be the official report of those decisions.”  With this decision, Arkansas will become “the first state in the nation to publish and distribute the official report of its appellate decisions electronically.”  

When the Court launches the new format for its official reports this summer, the searchable database maintained by the Reporter of Decisions will include all opinions issued after February 14, 2009, which is the closing date for the final volumes of the Arkansas Reports and the Arkansas Appellate Reports (375 Ark./104 Ark. App.).  Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 5-2 has been rewritten to reflect these changes.

(2) Court Abandons Use of “Unpublished” Decisions
Second, the Court’s change to Rule 5-2 “abandons the distinction between published and unpublished opinions and makes every Supreme Court and Court of Appeals opinion issued after July 1, 2009, precedent.”

In adopting this change, the Court notes that the General Assembly had expressed its view on this matter in Act 162 of 2009.  For a discussion of the effects of the passage of Act 162 of 2009 earlier this year, see Arkansas General Assembly Revives Anastasoff Controversy–Pondering the Effect of Act 162.

For more about today’s per curiam and Act 162, view Rep. Steve Harrelson’s May 28, 2009 blog post at www.underthedome.com.

Arkansas Supreme Court Voices Concern About Deficiency Problems in Appellate Briefs

~ Tasha C. Taylor

In a per curiam handed down on May 21, 2009, the Arkansas Supreme Court ordered rebriefing due to a deficiency in the appellant’s abstract.  See Roberts v. Roberts, Case No. 08-740.  According to a majority of the Court, the appellant’s abstract failed to comply with Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2.  

While Justice Brown opined, in his dissent, that the case should not be sent back for rebriefing due, in part, to the additional delay and expense to the appellant, the majority of the Court disagreed.  

Justice Corbin wrote, in his concurring opinion, which Justice Imber joined, that he “must write separately to voice [his] concern about the problems arising from the increased number of appeals with deficiency problems.”  Justice Corbin blamed both practitioners and the Court of Appeals for the current deficiency problems:

In fact, I believe the inconsistency of our appellate courts has contributed greatly to the
current dilemma we face. I do not believe the problem stems from confusion over our rules.
If it were simply a matter of the rules being confusing, we would have had more problems
back in 2001 when the current rule was adopted, not eight years later. I believe the real
problem is the fact that attorneys are being held to two different standards. This court expects
the work product submitted to us to be in compliance with our rules. The court of appeals,
-7- 08-740
however, is less stringent in enforcing those same rules.

In fact, I believe the inconsistency of our appellate courts has contributed greatly to the current dilemma we face. I do not believe the problem stems from confusion over our rules.  If it were simply a matter of the rules being confusing, we would have had more problems back in 2001 when the current rule was adopted, not eight years later. I believe the real problem is the fact that attorneys are being held to two different standards. This court expects the work product submitted to us to be in compliance with our rules. The court of appeals, however, is less stringent in enforcing those same rules.

According to Justice Corbin, “attorneys need to know that the briefs they submit are acceptable to both the court of appeals and this court.”  He adds that “such consistency is the only way to resolve this problem.”

District Court Judgment is Final Where Appeal to Circuit Court is Not Made Within 30 Days

~ Tasha C. Taylor ~ 1 Comment

The Arkansas Supreme Court dismissed the appeal presented in Arkansas State University v. Professional Credit Management, Inc. on March 19, 2009.

The Court determined, sua sponte, that the appeal that was taken from the district court to the circuit court was untimely because the district court record was not filed in the circuit court within 30 days of the district court’s judgment as is required by Rule 9 of the Arkansas District Court Rules.

The 30-day requirement for filing appeals from district court to circuit court is both mandatory and jurisdictional.  Thus, a circuit court has no authority to accept an untimely appeal from district court.  The Court held that where the time has passed for filing an appeal in circuit court, the district court order becomes final because the circuit court is whthout jurisdiction to hear the appeal that is untimely filed.  Where the circuit court did not have jurisdiction to take the appeal, the appellate court also lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

The Arkansas Supreme Court also emphasized that the rules governing post trial motions for appeals from district court to circuit court “are in marked contrast to the rules governing appeals from circuit court to this court and the court of appeals.”  As noted by the Court, “Rule 4 of the Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure–Civil provides that the deadline for filing an appeal may be extended depending on the particular posttrial motion that is filed, but there is certainly no such extension of time when filing appeals from district court to circuit court.”  Rather, District Court Rule 9(a) expressly provides that the 30-day period for filing appeals from the district court to the circuit court can not be extended. 

For other accounts of the Arkansas Supreme Court’s ruling in this case, see the following discussions: