Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 621
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION I
No.CV-13-104
HURT-HOOVER INVESTMENTS, Opinion Delivered October 30, 2013
LLC
APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE CLEBURNE
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
V. [NO. CV-09-140-4]
HONORABLE TIMOTHY M.
LESTER FULMER, ROB BENTLEY, WEAVER, JUDGE
ROBERT BEST, AND CARL
CHILSON
APPELLEES REBRIEFING ORDERED
PHILLIP T. WHITEAKER, Judge
Appellant Hurt-Hoover Investments, LLC, appeals from a jury verdict rendered in
favor of appellees Lester Fulmer, Rob Bentley, Robert Best, and Carl Chilson. Because of
deficiencies in Hurt-Hoover’s abstract and addendum, we order rebriefing.
The appellees entered into an agreement with Hurt-Hoover for Hurt-Hoover to
purchase the appellees’ ownership interests in H2O Lifts and Ramps, LLC. The contract
called for Hurt-Hoover to pay $955,000 for H2O, with an initial installment of $400,000
paid in cash. Hurt-Hoover agreed to enter into four separate promissory notes with the
appellees for the balance. While Hurt-Hoover paid the initial $400,000, it failed to pay the
Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 621
installments due under the promissory notes. The appellees then sued Hurt-Hoover in
Cleburne County Circuit Court for breach of contract.
Hurt-Hoover answered and moved to dismiss for improper venue. The motion
alleged that venue was proper in Craighead County, the location of the principal place of
business, under Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-60-111. After a hearing on the venue
question, the circuit court denied Hurt-Hoover’s motion, finding that Arkansas Code
Annotated section 16-55-213 repealed section 16-60-111 by implication.
The appellees subsequently moved for summary judgment. The circuit court denied
the motion, finding that there were genuine issues of material fact concerning the meaning
of an indemnification clause in the Purchase and Sale Agreement. Following the court’s
denial of the motion for summary judgment, counsel for Hurt-Hoover filed a motion to
withdraw as counsel so that the attorney who drafted the agreement, Robert Jones, could
offer testimony about the meaning of that contractual provision. Three days later, Hurt-
Hoover also filed a motion for continuance, asking that the jury trial be scheduled for a later
date to allow sufficient time for Hurt-Hoover to retain new counsel and for new counsel to
have adequate time to prepare for trial. The court denied both the motion to withdraw and
the motion for continuance.
The matter proceeded to jury trial, and a Cleburne County jury found in favor of the
appellees. Following entry of the judgment, Hurt-Hoover filed a timely notice of appeal. We
are unable to reach the merits of Hurt-Hoover’s appeal at this time because of deficiencies
in its abstract and addendum.
2
Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 621
Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(8)(A)(i) clearly states that “[t]he addendum must
include the following documents: . . . in a case where there was a jury trial, the jury’s verdict
forms.” (Emphasis added.) Hurt-Hoover’s addendum fails to include the jury’s verdict forms.
For that reason, rebriefing must be ordered. See Bunn Builders, Inc. v. Womack, 2011 Ark. 132;
Safeco Ins. Co. v. S. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 2013 Ark. App. 552.
In addition, both Hurt-Hoover’s motion for summary judgment and the appellees’
response to that motion were accompanied by exhibits that included transcripts of the
deposition testimony of various parties to the case. In these depositions, the parties discuss
the meaning of the indemnification clause, which was the clause that the circuit court found
to be ambiguous and the clause about which Hurt-Hoover wanted its attorney to testify.
None of these depositions were abstracted, as required by Rule 4-2(a)(5)(A) (“All material
parts of all hearing transcripts, trial transcripts, and deposition transcripts must be abstracted, even
if they are an exhibit to a motion or other paper.”). (Emphasis added.)
To correct these deficiencies, we order counsel to file a substituted abstract, brief, and
addendum within fifteen days. See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3). We further encourage counsel
to review Rule 4-2 in its entirety as it relates to the abstract and addendum to ensure that no
additional deficiencies are present.
Rebriefing ordered.
HARRISON and GRUBER , JJ., agree.
Waddell, Cole & Jones, P.A., by: Shane Baker and Justin E. Parkey, for appellant.
Richard Mays Law Firm, PLLC, by: Richard H. Mays, for appellees.
3