Sikora v. Bogard
2016 Ark. App. 494
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Appellees Bogard and Everett sued Sikora in district court to regain possession of their dog; district court entered judgment for appellees on August 21, 2015 ordering transfer of the dog (stay pending appeal with conditions).
- Sikora attempted to appeal to the Pulaski County Circuit Court. She filed an affidavit claiming the district clerk failed to prepare a certified record and filed a district court docket entry (one-day docket) with the circuit clerk.
- Sikora did not file a certified copy of the district-court complaint or small-claims claim form.
- Circuit court dismissed Sikora’s appeal, expressing doubt the appeal was perfected under Arkansas District Court Rule 9 and concluding it lacked jurisdiction.
- Sikora argued on appeal that she substantially complied, relied on Taylor v. Biba, and that the affidavit satisfied Rule 9(b)(2); she also sought a continuance. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sikora properly perfected her appeal under Ark. Dist. Ct. R. 9(b) | Sikora: filing the affidavit and docket sheet satisfied Rule 9(b); substantial compliance and Taylor v. Biba support flexibility | Appellees: Rule 9(b)(1)(ii) requires a certified copy of the complaint/claim form; failure to file is fatal | Court: Sikora failed to strictly comply by not filing the certified complaint/claim form; appeal was not perfected and circuit court lacked jurisdiction |
| Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by denying a continuance | Sikora: continuance should have been granted to cure defects | Appellees: no entitlement; appeal was not perfected | Court: did not reach merits because lack of perfection deprived circuit court of jurisdiction; affirmed dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Circle D Contractors, Inc. v. Bartlett, 2013 Ark. 131 (explains Ring requirement that refiling was procedural and addressed substantial-compliance issues)
- Taylor v. Biba, 2014 Ark. 22 (earlier case interpreted Rule 9 requirements pre-amendment)
- Velek v. City of Little Rock, 364 Ark. 531 (recognizes courts should not exalt form over substance in affidavits about clerk's refusal to certify a record)
- Motor Cars of Nashville, Inc. v. Chronister, 439 S.W.3d 101 (Court of Appeals holding that strict compliance with Rule 9(b) is required for circuit court to acquire jurisdiction)