2014 Ark. App. 569
Ark. Ct. App.2014Background
- The circuit court entered a January 5, 2012 order enforcing a settlement and dismissing all claims with prejudice, which did not end the dispute.
- Appellant Kent Smith, acting pro se, filed multiple motions in 2012 including a motion for reconsideration, contempt, vacatur, sanctions, and injunctive relief.
- Smith filed two notices of appeal (June 25, 2012 and February 28, 2013) attempting to appeal multiple orders but these notices failed to identify the specific order(s) appealed.
- Rule 3(e) requires specific content in a notice of appeal, including the judgment or part appealed and the record contents; substantial compliance is required.
- The appellate court held the notices did not substantially comply with Rule 3(e), making it impossible to determine Timeliness or the order appealed from.
- The record on appeal was due May 29, 2013; it was filed May 24, 2013 but later deficiencies (e.g., missing transcript) affected perfection of the appeal, and no timely extension resolved these issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the notice of appeal substantially comply with Rule 3(e)? | Smith argues substantial compliance despite misidentification. | Appellees contend the notices failed to identify the appealed order and record. | No substantial compliance; appeal dismissed. |
| Was the appeal timely perfected under Rule 5 for the record on appeal? | Smith contends extensions and timely filing occurred. | Appellees argue record timing and transcript issues prevented perfection. | Record not perfected; jurisdiction lacking. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rogers v. Tudor Ins. Co., 325 Ark. 226 (1996) (requires substantial compliance with Rule 3(e))
- Callaway v. Abshure, 2013 Ark. App. 21 (2013) (substantial compliance sometimes acceptable for misdated orders)
- Duncan v. Duncan, 2009 Ark. 565 (2009) (timeliness and substantial compliance standards for notices of appeal)
- Henley v. Medlock, 97 Ark. App. 45 (2006) (timely notice of appeal can cure certain deficiencies)
- Conlee v. Conlee, 366 Ark. 342 (2006) (record timing is a jurisdictional requirement for perfection)