Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 440
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No.CV-12-953
Opinion Delivered August 28, 2013
LORI ERWIN APPEAL FROM THE SCOTT
APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CV-2010-34]
V.
HONORABLE DAVID H.
SHELBY LEE FROST, INDIVIDUALLY MCCORMICK, JUDGE
AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE DONALD
ROSS AND SHELBY LEE FROST
REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST
APPELLEE REBRIEFING ORDERED
BRANDON J. HARRISON, Judge
Lori Erwin filed a complaint seeking to have a trust created by her late father and her
stepmother declared irrevocable. The circuit court denied the request, and Erwin appealed
that denial. We will not yet decide this appeal’s merits because we must order rebriefing.
There are two main hang-ups. One is Erwin’s abstract, which is presented in
question-and-answer format; Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(5)(B) (2012) expressly
forbids this. Second, Erwin’s addendum contains the entire transcript of the proceedings
below; Rule 4-2(a)(8) forbids that. An abstract and addendum can be deficient for containing
too much material, as well as too little. Am. Transp. Corp. v. Exch. Capital Corp., 84 Ark.
App. 28, 129 S.W.3d 312 (2003). Though an addendum’s particular contents are often a
matter of judgment that poses no problem, we have expressly warned that
Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 440
“[t]ranscripts—whether of testimony at trial or on deposition or of hearings—must be
converted into an impartial first-person narrative in the abstract. Transcripts should not be
in the addendum.” Lackey v. Mays, 100 Ark. App. 386, 389, 269 S.W.3d 397, 399 (2007).
Erwin has fifteen days from this opinion’s date to file a substituted brief that complies
with the rules. See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3). We strongly encourage Erwin to review the
rules and ensure that no other deficiencies exist. A subsequent failure to timely correct all
deficiencies in her appellant’s brief may result in the circuit court’s judgment being summarily
affirmed. See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(c)(2). After Erwin has served her substituted appellant’s
brief on Appellee Frost, then Frost may revise or supplement her appellee’s brief if need be.
Rebriefing ordered.
GLADWIN, C.J., and WALMSLEY, J., agree.
Hatfield & Sayre, by: Christopher D. Brockett and Eugene G. Sayre, for appellant.
Walters, Gaston, Allison & Parker, by: Troy Gaston, for appellee.
2