Warford v. Union Bank of Benton
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 512
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CA09-1301
Opinion Delivered
BILL WARFORD
APPELLANT
V.
June 23, 2010
APPEAL FROM THE SALINE
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CV-09-419-3]
HONORABLE JOHN LANGSTON,
JUDGE
UNION BANK OF BENTON
APPELLEE
REBRIEFING ORDERED
LARRY D. VAUGHT, Chief Judge
Appellant Bill Warford appeals the order of summary judgment entered by the Circuit
Court of Saline County. The circuit court dismissed, with prejudice, Warford’s complaint against
appellee Union Bank seeking payment on a certificate of deposit. Warford argues on appeal that
the circuit court erred because it resolved a credibility issue, found that his complaint was barred
by laches, and applied the presumption-of-payment doctrine. Because Warford’s abstract is
deficient, we order rebriefing.
The briefs in this case were filed after January 1, 2010, the effective date of amendments
to Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Rule 4-2. In re: Arkansas Supreme Court and
Court of Appeals Rules 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 4-7, and 6-9, 2009 Ark. 534 (per curiam). The 2010 version
of Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(5)(A) provides that
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 512
[t]he appellant shall create an abstract of the material parts of all the transcripts
(stenographically reported material) in the record. Information in a transcript is material
if the information is essential for the appellate court to confirm its jurisdiction, to
understand the case, and to decide the issues on appeal.
Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(5).1 The “contents” section of this rule provides that “[a]ll 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.” Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(5)(A).
Warford appeals from the grant of summary judgment, but he has failed to abstract the
deposition testimony relied upon in support of and in opposition to the motion. When parties
rely on depositions to support their positions, an abstract of the testimony is essential to our
understanding of the case. Gentry v. Robinson, 2009 Ark. 345, ___ S.W.3d ____; Meyer v. CDI
Contractors, LLC, 2009 Ark. 115, ___ S.W.3d ____ (per curiam) (rebriefing ordered where
appellant failed to abstract depositions that supported a motion for summary judgment).
Although Warford has abstracted the arguments of counsel at the summary-judgment hearing,
he has not abstracted any of the excerpts from depositions filed in support of and in opposition
to the motion for summary judgment. Therefore, under our rules, his abstract is deficient.
Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(b)(3) (2010) allows parties who file a deficient brief
an opportunity to file a conforming brief. We therefore order Warford to file, within fifteen days
from the date of entry of this order, a substituted brief, abstract, and addendum that complies
with Rule 4-2. The substituted brief shall include an abstract of all portions of depositions that
The former rule also required an abstract of deposition testimony. Ark. Sup. Ct. R.
4-2(a)(5)(2009).
1
-2-
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 512
are necessary to an understanding of all questions presented to us for decision. Gentry, supra. If
Warford fails to do so within the prescribed time, the judgment appealed from may be affirmed
for noncompliance with Rule 4-2. After service of the substituted abstract, brief, and addendum,
Union Bank shall have an opportunity to file a responsive brief, or it may rely on the brief
previously filed in this appeal.
Rebriefing ordered.
GRUBER and BROWN, JJ., agree.
-3-
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.
