Fulmer v. Hurt , 2016 Ark. App. 562 ( 2016 )

Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 562
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
CV-16-107
No.
OPINION DELIVERED: NOVEMBER 30, 2016
LESTER FULMER, ROB BENTLEY,
ROBERT BEST, AND CARL CHILSON
APPELLANTS APPEAL FROM THE CLEBURNE
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. 12-CV-12-177-4]
V.
HONORABLE TIM WEAVER,
WILLIAM HURT, MICHAEL HOOVER, JUDGE
AND MOBILITY LIFT SYSTEMS, LLC
APPELLEES REBRIEFING ORDERED
ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Chief Judge
Appellants Lester Fulmer, Rob Bentley, Robert Best, and Carl Chilson appeal the
October 8, 2015 order entered by the Cleburne County Circuit Court granting the motion
for summary judgment filed on August 3, 2015, by appellees William Hurt, Michael
Hoover, and Mobility Lift Systems, LLC. On appeal, appellants argue that the trial court
imposed a higher standard of misconduct by appellees to support piercing the corporate veil
than is required by Arkansas law. Because of multiple omissions from appellant’s addendum
and pagination errors in the argument, however, we must order rebriefing at this time.
An appellant’s addendum is to contain true and legible copies of the nontranscript
documents in the record on appeal that are essential for the appellate court to confirm its
jurisdiction, to understand the case, and to decide the issues on appeal. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-
2(a)(8) (2016). The addendum is missing at least two vitally important pleadings: (1)
appellants’ brief in support of their response to appellees’ motion for summary judgment
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 562
and (2) appellees’ reply to appellants’ response to their motion for summary judgment.
Although appellees filed a supplemental abstract and addendum that consists of multiple
exhibits to these pleadings, it does not include the actual pleadings.
Additionally, appellants fail to include proper page references in the argument section
of their brief. Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(7) provides that references in the
argument portion of briefs to material found in the abstract and addendum shall be followed
by a reference to the page number of the abstract or addendum at which such material may
be found. Appellant’s argument section contains multiple references to record page numbers
only, without corresponding abstract or addendum page numbers. Some of those references
can be matched to documents in appellees’ supplemental addendum or testimony in
appellees’ supplemental abstract, but others appear to correspond to items not in any
addendum or abstract currently before us.
Two cases from our supreme court reiterate its position on the necessary compliance
with Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(8)(A)(i) and appellants’ burden to provide a
record, abstract, addendum, and brief that allows us to understand the case and decide the
issues presented on appeal. See Dachs v. Hendrix, 2009 Ark. 322, 320 S.W.3d 645; Meyer v.
CDI Contractors, LLC, 2009 Ark. 115, 313 S.W.3d 519. In accord with our requirement
that the party rebrief where essential materials have been omitted from the abstract and
addendum, we allow appellants fifteen days from the date of this opinion in which to file a
substituted brief, abstract, and addendum to cure any and all deficiencies, at their own
expense. See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4–2(b)(3). We encourage appellants to carefully and
thoroughly review our rules to ensure that no additional deficiencies are present, and we
2
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 562
caution that if they fail to file a complying brief, abstract, and addendum within the
prescribed time, the judgment may be affirmed for noncompliance with the rules. Id.
Rebriefing ordered.
KINARD and HIXSON, JJ., agree.
Richard Mays Law Firm, PLLC, by: Richard H. Mays, for appellants.
Womack Phelps Puryear Mayfield & McNeil, P.A., by: Jeffrey W. Puryear and Ryan M.
Wilson, for appellees.
3