Fulmer v. Hurt
2016 Ark. App. 562
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Appellants (Fulmer, Bentley, Best, Chilson) appealed the Cleburne County Circuit Court’s October 8, 2015 order granting summary judgment to appellees (Hurt, Hoover, Mobility Lift Systems, LLC).
- Appellants contend the trial court applied a higher-than-necessary standard for piercing the corporate veil under Arkansas law.
- The appellate court flagged multiple deficiencies in appellants’ addendum: missing key pleadings (appellants’ brief in support of their response to the motion for summary judgment and appellees’ reply) and pagination/citation errors.
- Appellants’ brief contained references to record page numbers without the required abstract/addendum page citations required by Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(7) and omitted essential documents required by Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(8).
- Because the record on appeal was incomplete and noncomplying, the court declined to reach the substantive veil-piercing question and instead ordered appellants to refile a substituted brief, abstract, and addendum within fifteen days, warning that failure to comply could result in affirmance for noncompliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court applied an overly stringent standard for piercing the corporate veil | Appellants: trial court required a higher misconduct showing than Arkansas law permits | Appellees: summary judgment was proper; procedural record supports decision and appellees supplied supplemental materials | Court did not decide merits; ordered rebriefing because of record deficiencies preventing review |
| Whether appellants’ addendum/abstract complied with Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2 | Appellants: (implicit) record sufficient to review issues | Appellees: appellants’ addendum omitted vital pleadings and contained pagination errors; citations were deficient | Held noncompliant: addendum missing essential documents and citation format violations require cure |
| Whether appellant’s brief provided proper page references to abstract/addendum | Appellants: referenced record pages (insufficient) | Appellees: lacked required abstract/addendum page references per Rule 4-2(a)(7) | Held deficient; many argument citations did not include required abstract/addendum page numbers |
| Appropriate remedy for the procedural noncompliance | Appellants: (requested review) | Appellees: enforcement of appellate rules and dismissal/affirmance possible | Court ordered rebriefing/substituted brief, abstract, and addendum within 15 days; warned judgment may be affirmed for continued noncompliance |
Key Cases Cited
- Dachs v. Hendrix, 320 S.W.3d 645 (2009) (discusses appellant’s burden to provide an adequate record and comply with appellate rules)
- Meyer v. CDI Contractors, LLC, 313 S.W.3d 519 (2009) (reinforces the necessity of providing a record, abstract, addendum, and brief that allow appellate review)