2015 Ark. App. 369
Ark. Ct. App.2015Background
- Kimberly and Adam Stibich married in 1998, had two children, and Kimberly filed for divorce in May 2007.
- The trial court entered a divorce decree in September 2009 awarding custody to Kimberly; property issues remained unresolved.
- Adam pursued post-decree relief (contempt, psychological evaluation, change of custody, child-support reduction), triggering four more years of litigation.
- Adam appealed the custody determination earlier; this court affirmed that decision.
- In December 2013 the trial court entered an amended final order resolving all remaining issues; Kimberly appealed that order.
- The Court of Appeals declined to reach the merits and ordered rebriefing because Kimberly’s appellate abstract and addendum failed to comply with Arkansas Appellate Rule 4-2 requirements (impartial abstracting, inclusion of all material transcripts and deposition testimony, record-page references, and complete addendum materials including all notices of appeal and key pleadings).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy/impartiality of appellant's abstract | Kimberly’s abstract sufficiently presents the record supporting her claims | Adam contends the abstract omits adverse material and is partisan | Court held Kimberly’s abstract is partisan and omits material parts; must be cured |
| Inclusion of all material transcripts/depositions | Kimberly omitted or inadequately abstracted deposition of Dr. Krauft | Adam argues deposition is material and was introduced at trial | Court held Dr. Krauft’s deposition is material and must be properly abstracted |
| Compliance with transcript page-reference rule | Kimberly summarized lengthy testimony without required page references | Adam asserts rule requires page references for every page beyond the one-page limit | Court held Kimberly violated the one-page-without-reference rule and must correct it |
| Completeness of addendum (notices and key pleadings) | Kimberly’s addendum omitted several notices and key pleadings | Adam argues addendum must include all notices of appeal and essential non-transcript documents | Court held addendum deficient (missing notices, complaint, answers, and orders) and ordered substituted brief/addendum |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Peebles, 313 Ark. 654 (1993) (abstract must impartially condense material parts of the record)
- Weston v. State, 265 Ark. 58 (1979) (partisan abstracts that omit adverse material fail Rule 4-2)
- Stibich v. Stibich, 378 S.W.3d 906 (Ark. App. 2011) (prior appeal affirming custody determination)