Bruce Kuchmas v. Deborah Kuchmas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
DIVISION II
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
TERRY CRABTREE, JUDGE
CA 06-92
August 30, 2006
BRUCE KUCHMAS
APPELLANT
A PPEAL FR O M TH E SEB A STIA N
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. DR-2005-17-G]
HONORABLE JIM D. SPEARS,
JUDGE
V.
REBRIEFING ORDERED
DEBORAH KUCHMAS
APPELLEE
The parties in this case, appellant Bruce Kuchmas and appellee Deborah Kuchmas, were
divorced by a decree entered on October 7, 2005, ending their marriage of twenty-one years. Bruce
appeals from the decree, contesting only the trial court’s directive that he pay $100 a month in
alimony. We order rebriefing.
Rule 4-2(a)(5) of the Rules of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals provides in pertinent
part that the appellant’s abstract should consist of an impartial condensation, without comment or
emphasis, of such material parts of the testimony of the witnesses and colloquies between court and
counsel as are necessary to an understanding of all questions presented to the Court for decision. This
rule also requires the testimony of the witnesses to be abstracted in the first person. The appellant’s
abstract in this case fails on both counts.
The abstract is not in the first person; rather, it is a partial reprint, in question-and-answer
form, of portions of the transcript. Mere reprints of the transcribed testimony do not qualify as a
proper abstract. Muldrow v. Douglass, 316 Ark. 86, 870 S.W.2d 736 (1994); Widmer v. Taylor, 296
Ark. 337, 756 S.W.2d 903 (1988).
Our review of the record has also revealed that appellant’s attempted abstract was not
presented in an impartial manner. As one example, the record shows that appellee moved out of the
marital home to live with a friend, whom she paid $300 a month plus half of the utilities, while she
was also paying half the mortgage on the vacant marital home. The record shows that, when appellee
was asked how that worked out for her financially, she replied:
It’s - - I don’t know. I think when I moved, I was just hoping that it
would sell quickly and wouldn’t be a problem. My daughter started
packing immediately after he left. She’s been wanting to move out of
that house, and I, more than anything, did it for her, to get out of there.
By contrast, in appellant’s reprint of the record, appellee’s response to the question is stated simply
as “I don’t know.” The omission of appellee’s entire response is misleading and is significant in light
of appellant’s contention that appellee was wasteful of money.
Although the failure to properly abstract has in the past been considered a bar to consideration
of the merits of an argument, this court must now allow rebriefing to cure deficiencies in an abstract.
See Ark. Dep’t of Human Services v. Collier, 351 Ark. 380, 92 S.W.3d 683 (2002). In accordance
with Rule 4-2(b)(3), appellant shall have fifteen days to file a substituted brief, abstract, and
addendum that complies with Rule 4-2(a)(5).
Rebriefing ordered.
R OBBINS and G RIFFEN, JJ., agree.
-2-
CA 06-92
-3-
CA 06-92
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
