Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 306
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CV-16-514
ANGELA MOODY Opinion Delivered: May 10, 2017
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
FOURTEENTH DIVISION
EDWARD MOODY [NO. 60DR-11-1586]
APPELLEE
HONORABLE VANN SMITH, JUDGE
SUPPLEMENTATION OF THE
RECORD AND SUPPLEMENTATION
OF THE ADDENDUM ORDERED
WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge
Appellant appeals from the circuit court’s February 25, 2016 order. On appeal she
argues that (1) appellee should be responsible for the real-estate taxes on the marital home
he received in the property-settlement agreement, (2) the circuit court’s flatware ruling was
reversible error, (3) the circuit court erred in splitting the pair of lion statues, (4) appellant
is entitled to the full value of the Kubota tractor, (5) the circuit court erred in ruling on
appellant’s contempt motion relating to appellee’s parental neglect without taking
testimony, and (6) the circuit court erred by denying appellant’s motion for contempt for
appellee’s harassing and annoying phone calls. We are unable to address the merits of
appellant’s arguments and order supplementation of the record and supplementation of the
addendum.
The parties were divorced pursuant to a divorce decree entered on January 8, 2015.
The decree stated that the parties reached a “settlement compromise of all property rights
Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 306
and debt liabilities existing between them, which agreement the Court [found] to be fair,
reasonable and equitable.” It also stated “[t]hat the above-referenced Property Division and
Settlement of and between the parties is hereby approved by the Court and is incorporated
but not merged into the Decree.”
The parties each filed numerous contempt motions, which were disposed of by the
circuit court’s February 25, 2016 order, which stated that “[t]he parties were divorced on
January 8, 2015, wherein they entered into a Property Settlement Agreement purporting to
divide all assets and issues of custody and visitation.” Though referenced in the decree and
in the order appealed from, the property-settlement agreement does not appear in the
addendum or record.
Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure–Civil 6(e) states that if anything material to
either party is omitted from the record by error or accident, the appellate court, on its own
initiative, may direct that the omission or misstatement shall be corrected, and if necessary,
that a supplemental record be certified and transmitted. Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-
2(a)(8) states that the addendum “shall contain true and legible copies of the non-transcript
documents in the record on appeal that are essential for the appellate court to confirm its
jurisdiction, to understand the case, and to decide the issues on appeal.” Arkansas Supreme
Court Rule 4-2(a)(8) further states that the addendum “must include . . . any document
essential to an understanding of the case and the issues on appeal, such as a will, contract,
lease, note, insurance policy, trust, or other writing.”
Both the divorce decree and the February 25, 2016 order reference the property-
settlement agreement, with the divorce decree rulings being in part or totally based on that
2
Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 306
property-settlement agreement. Because the circuit court property-settlement agreement
was not merged the into the divorce decree, it is imperative that we know which specific
provisions in the divorce decree were entered pursuant to the property-settlement
agreement. 1
Accordingly, we remand for supplementation of the record to correct the above-
referenced deficiencies within thirty days. Additionally, we order appellant to submit a
supplemental addendum correcting the above-referenced deficiencies within fifteen days
from the date on which the supplemental record is filed. We encourage appellant’s counsel
to review Rule 4-2 of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals to
ensure that the supplemental record and supplemental addendum comply with the rules and
that no additional deficiencies are present.
Supplementation of the record and supplementation of the addendum ordered.
KLAPPENBACH and WHITEAKER, JJ., agree.
Short Law Firm, by: Lee D. Short, for appellant.
Judson C. Kidd, for appellee.
1
See Tiner v. Tiner, 2011 Ark. App. 478, 385 S.W.3d 326; Meadors v. Meadors, 58
Ark. App. 96, 946 S.W.2d 724 (1997).
3