Sikora v. Bogard
2016 Ark. App. 619
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On August 21, 2015, the Pulaski County District Court entered judgment awarding possession of a dog to plaintiffs Shalon Bogard and Paulette Everett against defendant Stephanie Sikora.
- Sikora sought to appeal to the Pulaski County Circuit Court and filed an affidavit on September 3, 2015, alleging the district clerk failed to prepare and certify the record/docket sheet.
- Sikora also filed a document she described as the district court’s docket sheet, but it reflected only the single-day entry for the August 21 judgment and not prior entries or a certified complaint.
- Arkansas District Court Rule 9(b) (amended effective July 1, 2014) prescribes two alternative ways to perfect an appeal: (1) file certified copies of the district docket (or record) and the district complaint/claim form; or (2) if the district clerk fails to timely certify the record, file a timely affidavit showing the request and the clerk’s failure after 30 days.
- The circuit court dismissed Sikora’s appeal for failure to perfect under Rule 9; the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding Sikora did not strictly comply with either subsection of Rule 9(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sikora perfected her appeal under Rule 9(b)(2) by filing an affidavit | Sikora: affidavit showed clerk refused/failed to prepare the record so appeal was perfected | Appellees: affidavit did not meet the Rule’s requirements (wrong content and filed before 30-day period elapsed) | Held: Not perfected — affidavit filed only 13 days after judgment and did not satisfy Rule 9(b)(2) timing/content requirements |
| Whether Sikora perfected her appeal under Rule 9(b)(1) by filing a docket copy | Sikora: later filed a district-court docket sheet which perfected the appeal per Rule 9(b)(1) | Appellees: the filing was not a certified docket sheet, lacked prior entries, and she did not file the required certified complaint/claim form | Held: Not perfected — the document was not a certified docket/record and she failed to file the certified complaint/claim as required by Rule 9(b)(1)(ii) |
| Whether circuit court acquired jurisdiction despite procedural defects | Sikora: substantial compliance or excusing form over substance should suffice | Appellees: strict compliance with Rule 9(b) is required for jurisdiction | Held: Circuit court never acquired jurisdiction; strict compliance required and was not met |
| Whether circuit court abused discretion by denying continuance | Sikora: should have been granted continuance to correct defects | Appellees: dismissal appropriate given noncompliance | Held: Court did not need to reach or grant continuance because appeal was not perfected; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Velek v. City of Little Rock, 222 S.W.3d 182 (Ark. 2006) (court criticized rigid form-over-substance approach but recognized limits)
- Motor Cars of Nashville, Inc. v. Chronister, 439 S.W.3d 101 (Ark. App. 2014) (requires strict compliance with Rule 9(b) before circuit court acquires jurisdiction over a district-court appeal)