Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 494
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
CV-16-917
No.
TAMI THOMAS DARR Opinion Delivered: October 4, 2017
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
FIFTEENTH DIVISION
FRANCIS JEAN BILLEAUDEAU [NO. 60PR-14-772]
APPELLEE
HONORABLE RICHARD MOORE,
JUDGE
REBRIEFING ORDERED
RITA W. GRUBER, Chief Judge
This case involves a will contest, but we do not consider the appeal at this time
because of briefing deficiencies. Accordingly, we order rebriefing.
Stephen Michael Herman passed away on April 18, 2014, leaving a will that he
executed on January 14, 2014. The sole beneficiary and named executor under the will was
appellant, Tami Thomas Darr, whose mother had been married to Mr. Herman for three
years in the 1970s. Appellee, Francis Jean Billeaudeau, Mr. Herman’s half-sister, filed a
motion to contest the probate of the will and to remove Ms. Darr as the executor, alleging
that Ms. Darr procured the will; Mr. Herman lacked the testamentary capacity to properly
execute the will; and the will was the product of undue influence by Ms. Darr. After a
hearing, the circuit court found that Ms. Darr had procured the will and had failed to rebut
the presumptions that Mr. Herman lacked testamentary capacity and that the will was
obtained through undue influence. The court set aside the will, removed Ms. Darr as
Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 494
executor, and approved appellee’s nomination of appellee’s son as personal representative of
Mr. Herman’s estate. Ms. Darr filed this appeal from the circuit court’s order.
Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2 requires references in the argument to material
found in the abstract and addendum to “be followed by a reference to the page number of
the abstract or addendum at which such material may be found.” Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(7)
(2016). Appellant’s argument section, which consists of 22 pages, contains numerous
references to evidence with no page references to either the abstract or addendum. There
are a few places in the argument section where it appears counsel intended to include a page
reference—one reference stating, “INSERT” and one reference stating, “R., Add”—but
no page number appears. Finally, there are two page references to the addendum—one in
the statement of the case and one in the conclusion—that appear to refer to an order but
actually refer to medical records. The requirements of Rule 4-2(a)(7) aid the appellate court
in following the arguments and enable it to determine whether there is merit in any alleged
points of error. We will order rebriefing when our efforts to examine relevant parts of the
testimony and evidence are frustrated by the lack of proper references. Foster v. Estate of
Collins, 2016 Ark. App. 302, at 5; see also Jones v. Jones, 2015 Ark. App. 468 n.7, 469 S.W.3d
402 n.7.
We order appellant to cure the deficiency by submitting a substituted brief in
compliance with our rules, with proper citation to the abstract and addendum, within fifteen
days from the date of entry of this order. We also advise counsel to examine our rules to
ensure that no other briefing deficiencies exist.
2
Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 494
Rebriefing ordered.
WHITEAKER and BROWN, JJ., agree.
Oscar Hirby and Robert S. Tschiemer, for appellant.
Kamps & Stotts, PLLC, by: David W. Kamps and Adrienne M. Griffis, for appellee.
3