Jo Ann Marie Fuller v. Marcus S. Angelo

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

TERRY CRABTREE, JUDGE

DIVISION I

JO ANN MARIE FULLER

APPELLANT

V.

MARCUS S. ANGELO

APPELLEE

CA 00-240

NOVEMBER 1, 2000

APPEAL FROM THE NEWTON COUNTY CHANCERY COURT

[NO. E 98-22-2]

HONORABLE GARY BERT ISBELL,

CHANCERY JUDGE

AFFIRMED

This is an appeal from the Newton County Chancery Court's finding that the appellant, Jo Ann Marie Fuller, had sixty days in which to remove buildings from the property of Marcus S. Angelo, the appellee, at appellant's expense. The court also found that appellant's house encroached on appellee's property, but did not order it removed, and that the road going to appellant's house existed by prescriptive easement. We affirm the chancellor's decision pursuant to Arkansas Supreme Court Rules 4-2(a)(8) and 4-2(b)(3) (2000), due to appellant's failure to include a photocopy of the trial court's final order in the addendum to her brief, and because appellant's abstract is flagrantly deficient.

This case was initially filed in the Newton County Circuit Court as an ejectment action. The case was transferred three times between circuit and chancery court. It was finally transferred for the last time to chancery court.

Rule 4-2(a)(8) states that "the brief shall contain an Addendum which shall include photocopies of the order, judgment, decree, ruling, or letter opinion, or administrative law judge's opinion, from which the appeal is taken." The final order from which this appeal is taken is included in the transcript. Appellant failed to provide a copy of the trial court's final order in her addendum. If the final order had been abstracted we might have overlooked this. However, appellant did not abstract the trial court's final order.

Further, appellant failed to abstract or even include in the record on appeal, appellee's second amended complaint. Appellant argues that her failure to include a copy of the second amended complaint is due to a clerical error. Before the second amended complaint was filed, the case was transferred from the Newton County Circuit Court to the Newton County Chancery Court. Appellee mistakenly styled the second amended complaint as in the Circuit Court of Newton County. Appellant argues that this mistake caused the second amended complaint not to be made part of the record on appeal. However, appellant's answer to the second amended complaint, styled in the Circuit Court of Newton County, is included in the record on appeal. Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(6) states:

The appellant's abstract or abridgment of the record should consist of an impartial condensation, without comment or emphasis, of only such material parts of the pleadings, proceedings, facts, documents, and other matters in the record as are necessary to an understanding of all questions presented to the Court for decision.

A summary of the pleadings and the judgment appealed from are the bare essentials of an abstract. Warnock v. Warnock, 336 Ark. 506, 988 S.W.2d 7 (1999). It is the appellant's burden to produce a record sufficient to demonstrate error, and the record onappeal is confined to that which is abstracted. King v. State, 325 Ark. 313, 925 S.W.2d 159 (1996).

Appellant's failure to either abstract or include in the addendum to her brief the trial court's final order, taken together with, appellant's failure to either include in the record on appeal or abstract appellee's second amended complaint precludes this court from considering issues concerning them. King, supra.

Affirmed.

Jennings and Roaf, JJ., agree.