Worley v. City of Jonesboro
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 316
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
CA 10-468
No.
RONALD WORLEY AND MERYL
WORLEY
APPELLANTS
V.
CITY OF JONESBORO, ARKANSAS;
MARY JO DRUM; CRYE-LEIKE OF
ARKANSAS, INC.; AND JOYCE
ISBELL
APPELLEES
Opinion Delivered
April 27, 2011
APPEAL FROM THE CRAIGHEAD
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
WESTERN DIVISION
[NO. CV-05-421]
HONORABLE DAVID N. LASER,
JUDGE
REBRIEFING ORDERED
DOUG MARTIN, Judge
Appellants Ronald Worley and Meryl Worley purchased a house from appellee Mary
Jo Drum, who had listed it with appellees Crye-Leike of Arkansas, Inc., and its agent, Joyce
Isbell. Appellants later sued appellees and the City of Jonesboro, alleging that their garage had
flooded six times because of inadequate drainage. They alleged fraud against appellees; breach
of fiduciary duty by Isbell and Crye-Leike; and unlawful taking by the city. The circuit court
granted summary judgment and awarded attorney’s fees to appellees. The remaining claims
against the city went to trial, and the jury awarded appellants $15,000. Appellants subsequently
appealed, challenging the summary judgment for appellees and the award of attorney’s fees.
On cross-appeal, appellees argue that the award of fees was too low. We must order rebriefing
because appellants’ abstract is deficient.
Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 316
Focusing on Drum’s deposition testimony, appellants assert that Drum made fraudulent
statements in her owner’s disclosure form. Appellants, however, did not abstract any of the
deposition testimony, and appellees’ supplemental abstract is not complete. Arkansas Supreme
Court Rule 4-2(a)(5) (2011) provides that material portions of depositions must be abstracted
in the same manner as witness testimony. When parties rely on depositions to support their
positions, an abstract is essential to our understanding of the case. Gentry v. Robinson, 2009
Ark. 345, 322 S.W.3d 498. Without an adequate abstract, we cannot determine whether the
circuit court erred in granting summary judgment to appellees.
Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(b)(4) (2011) allows parties who file a deficient brief
an opportunity to file a conforming brief. We therefore order appellants to file, within fifteen
days of entry of this order, a substituted abstract, brief, and addendum that complies with Rule
4-2. The substituted brief shall include an abstract of all portions of depositions that are
necessary to an understanding of all questions presented to us for decision. If appellants fail 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,
appellees shall have an opportunity to file a responsive brief in the time prescribed by the
court, or they may rely on the brief previously filed in this appeal.
Rebriefing ordered.
H ART and G RUBER, JJ., agree.
2
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.
