Jeremy Cook and Ronnie Hedge v. the Most Worshipful Lodge, Free and Accepted Masons of the State of Arkansas, and Its Masonic Jurisdiction (Grand Lodge) Carl E. Nelson Robert L. Jackson Boyd Freeman Samuel D. Lattin George K. Coffman (Deceased) Arnold G. Hodge Charles H. Ferguson Martin E. Warren Billy Joe Holder Bradley R. Phillips George R. Franks, Jr. And Chris Young, All in Their Individual Capacities and in Their Official Capacities as Office Holders and Members of the Grand Lodge And John Does 1–25 ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                                 Cite as 
    2022 Ark. App. 445
    ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
    No.   CV-22-600
    Opinion Delivered   November 2, 2022
    JEREMY COOK AND RONNIE HEDGE APPELLEES’ MOTION TO DISMISS
    APPELLANTS APPEAL
    [PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT
    V.                                COURT, FIFTH DIVISION
    [NO. 60CV-19-605]
    THE MOST WORSHIPFUL LODGE,
    FREE AND ACCEPTED MASONS OF       HONORABLE WENDELL
    THE STATE OF ARKANSAS, AND ITS    GRIFFEN, JUDGE
    MASONIC JURISDICTION (GRAND
    LODGE); CARL E. NELSON; ROBERT
    L. JACKSON; BOYD FREEMAN;         DISSENTING OPINION ON
    SAMUEL D. LATTIN; GEORGE K.       GRANT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
    COFFMAN (DECEASED); ARNOLD G.     APPEAL
    HODGE; CHARLES H. FERGUSON;
    MARTIN E. WARREN; BILLY JOE
    HOLDER; BRADLEY R. PHILLIPS;
    GEORGE R. FRANKS, JR.; AND CHRIS
    YOUNG, ALL IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL
    CAPACITIES AND IN THEIR OFFICIAL
    CAPACITIES AS OFFICE HOLDERS
    AND MEMBERS OF THE GRAND
    LODGE; AND JOHN DOES 1–25
    APPELLEES
    BRANDON J. HARRISON, Chief Judge
    This case ended in circuit court when the circuit judge granted the defendants’
    motion to dismiss under Ark. R. Civ. P. 12. I have reviewed the “record pleadings” part
    of the record, which was timely filed with this court’s clerk. Given the nature of the
    pleadings and the procedural posture of the case when it ended in circuit court, there is no
    1
    reason to believe that lacking a “short” transcript of a Rule 12(b)(6) hearing will materially
    impede any party’s ability to prosecute or defend this appeal on its merit. Nor do I see any
    reason why this court would be prevented from understanding what happened in circuit
    court on the record as is. For example, witness testimony is not usually (if ever) taken
    during hearings under Rule 12(b)(6). Given the arguments made in this case against the
    plaintiffs’ complaint, I cannot imagine anything new was added to the record. Argument
    from counsel is, of course, important to receive and archive. But that does not mean that
    the transcript had to be designated for inclusion in the appeal record. Hearing transcripts
    are often helpful, and sometimes necessary, when conducting appellate review. But not
    always. While we may not know exactly what occurred during the hearing, the papers we
    have leave no reasonable doubt in my mind about what the parties argued at the Rule
    12(b)(6) stage; and we have the circuit court’s written and detailed ruling. Because I am
    not persuaded that the omitted transcript is material information to this appeal—it is almost
    certainly a summary presentation of the parties’ ample briefing for, or against, the
    complaint—I would deny the motion to dismiss this appeal.
    I understand the majority’s decision to dismiss, citing Coggins v. Coggins, 
    353 Ark. 431
    , 
    108 S.W.3d 588
     (2003). That case reads as a strong rebuke to an appellant doing what
    was done here. That said, one cannot help but notice that our supreme court referenced
    the state of the record in Coggins in some detail as it reached its conclusion to dismiss. In
    my view, the essentially complete record that was timely filed in this court should trigger a
    briefing schedule so that the parties’ merit arguments may begin. To honor Coggins’s
    2
    command, however, the transcript in this case could be deemed “forfeited” because the
    appellants did not fully exhaust the seven-month period available in circuit court to get the
    transcript from the court reporter before filing a writ of certiorari in this court. Luckily for
    the plaintiffs-turned-appellants, the record is otherwise sufficiently developed to decide the
    issue raised in the notice of appeal.
    * * *
    I would deny the appellees’ motion to dismiss, deem the hearing transcript forfeited
    à la Coggins, but direct the clerk to issue a briefing schedule forthwith.
    3
    

Document Info

Filed Date: 11/2/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/2/2022