DAVID A. STEBBINS v. DAVID D. STEBBINS
No. CV-16-16
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV
Opinion Delivered: SEPTEMBER 7, 2016
2016 Ark. App. 385
HONORABLE RUSSELL ROGERS, SPECIAL JUDGE
APPEAL FROM THE BOONE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. CV-12-85] REMANDED TO SETTLE AND SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD; REBRIEFING ORDERED
Thе parties to this appeal are appellant David A. Stebbins and his father, appellee David D. Stebbins. At the time of the incidеnt giving rise to this litigation, the son was residing with the father. In an attempt to eliminate or reduce previous friction between the parties, the parties had executed a written agreement setting forth the terms and conditions whereby the son could live in the father‘s residеnce. On November 24, 2011, the police were called to the home of the father David D. Stebbins and found that the father had suffered knifе wounds to his face. The son, David A. Stebbins, was arrested and charged with battery. The son subsequently filed suit against his father claiming that his father had breached the written contract between the parties that night by failing to provide adequate high-speed internet service. Appellant further claimed that, after he confronted his father about the problem with the internet, his father punched him in the facе, and then the father
The case was tried to a jury, and the jury‘s verdicts were returned in favor of the father David D. Stebbins. Thereafter, the trial court entered a judgment dismissing appellant‘s complaint with prejudice. David A. Stebbins filed a motion for a new trial and subsequently filed a second motion for new trial, which were both denied by the trial court. David A. Stebbins now appeals from the underlying judgment and the order denying his second motion for new trial.
On appeal, the son David A. Stebbins raises twenty-nine arguments for reversal. Because David A. Stebbins’ addendum contains a document not contained in the record, we remand to settle the record to include that document if it exists. Specifically, we direct that the record be settled and supplemented with a letter from the trial judge to the parties dated January 23, 2015, a copy of which is contained in appellant‘s addendum at pages
Rule 4-2(a)(8) of the Arkansas Supreme Court Rules provides that the addendum contained in the brief must contain all documents in the record that are essential for the appellate court to confirm its jurisdiction, to understand thе case, and to decide the issues on appeal. Rule 4-2(a)(8)(A)(i) specifically provides that the addendum must include the jury‘s verdict forms and the order being appealed. Appellant‘s addendum does not include the jury‘s verdict forms (interrogatories No. 1 through Nо. 4), nor does it include the trial court‘s order denying appellant‘s second motion for new trial, from which appellant has aрpealed. Additionally, we observe that one of appellant‘s arguments challenges the trial court‘s denial of his proрosed jury instructions. While appellant did include in his addendum the instructions he proposed, he failed to include the jury instructions actuаlly given by the trial court, and these jury instructions are also essential to our review of the case. Finally, we note that appеllant‘s case rests in large part on the alleged breach of the parties’ written contract, but there is no legible coрy of the contract in the addendum. On rebriefing, we order appellant to include in the addendum each of the omitted documеnts identified above.
We further conclude that appellant‘s abstract is in flagrant violation of Rule 4-2(a)(5)(B), which provides that the abstract “shall be an impartial condensation, without comment or emphasis, of the transcript.” The appellant‘s abstraсt is inaccurate and misleading in numerous respects. For example, the abstract contains witness testimony
Because of the deficiency in the record, we remand to the trial court to settle and supplement the record with the omitted document (the trial court‘s January 23, 2015 letter) within thirty days. Pursuant to Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(b)(3), we order appellant to file a substituted abstract, addendum, and brief within fifteen days from the date that the supplemental record is filed. The materials listed herein are not intended as an exhaustive list of deficienсies, and we encourage appellant to carefully review the rules and ensure that no other deficiencies exist bеfore filing his substituted abstract, addendum, and brief. If appellant fails to cure the deficiencies within the prescribed time, the orders аppealed from may be affirmed for noncompliance with the rule.
KINARD and WHITEAKER, JJ., agree.
David A. Stebbins, pro se appellant.
No response.