McAdams v. Automotive Rentals, Inc.

Bobby McADAMS, Attorney in Fact for Shelby L.
McAdams and Theresa McAdams, and Bob McAdams
v. AUTOMOTIVE RENTALS, INC.

96-85                                              ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                  Opinion delivered May 6, 1996


1.   Appeal & error -- orders not made part of record on appeal --
     appellant had burden to bring up sufficient record on appeal.
     -- Where all five arguments advanced by appellants pertained
     to rulings in the trial court prior to the first appeal, and
     appellants referred to orders from the prior appeal and record
     and partially abstracted a March 1994 order, but where those
     orders were not a part of the record on appeal, the supreme
     court affirmed the appeal without reaching the merits; the
     burden is on appellant to bring up a record sufficient to show
     that the trial court was wrong. 

2.   Appeal & error -- abstract should contain condensation of all
     material facts -- appellant has burden of presenting abstract
     that sufficiently demonstrates reversible error. -- An
     appellant's abstract or abridgement of the record should
     consist of an impartial condensation of the 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; there is
     only one record and there are seven judges; it is impractical,
     and often impossible, for all seven judges to attempt to pass
     around the one record, and the court will not do so; it is
     appellant's burden to present an abstract that sufficiently
     demonstrates reversible error. 


     Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court; Annabelle Clinton Imber,
Chancellor; affirmed.
     C.W. Patty, Jr, for appellants Shelby L. McAdams and Theresa
McAdams.
     Bob J. Adams, pro se.
     Eichenbaum, Scott, Miller, Liles, & Heister, P.A., by:  James
H. Penick, III, for appellee.

     Andree Layton Roaf, Justice.May 6, 1996.   *ADVREP4*








BOBBY JOE MCADAMS, ATTORNEY IN
FACT FOR SHELBY L. MCADAMS AND
THERESA MCADAMS, AND BOB
MCADAMS,
                    APPELLANTS,

V.

AUTOMOTIVE RENTALS, INC.,
                    APPELLEE.






96-85


APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY
CHANCERY COURT,
NO. 91-4764,
HON. ANNABELLE CLINTON IMBER,
JUDGE,




AFFIRMED.
                   JUSTICE ANDREE LAYTON ROAF



     Appellants bring this appeal from a chancellor's order entered
in a foreclosure action.  This court affirmed a previous appeal in
this case because of a flagrantly deficient abstract. McAdams v.
Automotive Rentals, Inc., 319 Ark. 254, 891 S.W.2d 52 (1995).  We
again affirm because of a deficient record and abstract.  
     This case arose from a foreclosure action filed by Twin City
Bank against Bobby Joe McAdams (McAdams) and other parties that
held liens against McAdams' property.  Twin City's mortgage was
deemed first in priority and was subsequently assigned to Shelby
and Theresa McAdams, the brother and sister-in-law of Bobby Joe
McAdams.  After a sale was ordered, Shelby and Theresa McAdams
purchased the property, giving what they later claimed to be a
conditional bid in the amount of $166,960.72.  Appellee Automotive
Rentals, Inc. (ARI), was deemed second in priority by the chancery
court, and therefore entitled to any excess proceeds from the sale
of the property.  However, the chancellor also determined that
McAdams was entitled to a homestead exemption if he proved within
five months that he intended to use the excess proceeds to procure
another homestead.  The McAdamses and ARI appealed; this is the
appeal which was dismissed by mandate dated February 28, 1995,
because of a deficient abstract. McAdams, supra.  Upon remand, the
chancellor determined that McAdams had failed to timely prove that
he was going to use any excess proceeds towards another homestead,
that his homestead exemption would be extinguished and that ARI
would therefore be entitled to any excess proceeds.  The order was
entered on August 9, 1995.  The McAdamses now appeal from this
order.
     We must affirm this appeal without reaching the merits.  All
five arguments advanced by the McAdamses pertain to rulings in the
trial court prior to the first appeal.  Appellants refer to orders
from the prior appeal and record and partially abstract a March
1994 order, however, those orders are not a part of the record on
appeal.  The burden is on appellant to bring up a record sufficient
to show that the trial court was wrong. King v. Younts, 278 Ark.
91, 643 S.W.2d 542 (1982); Armbrust v. Henry, 263 Ark. 98, 562 S.W.2d 598 (1978); A.R.A.P. 6(b).       
     The McAdamses also refer to reports of sale and commissioner's
deeds from the prior appeal which have been included as exhibits in
this record, however, those reports and deeds are not contained in
the McAdamses' abstract.  An appellant's abstract or abridgement of
the record should consist of an impartial condensation of the
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. Davis v.
Peebles, 313 Ark. 654, 857 S.W.2d 825 (1993); Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-
2(a)(6).  The reason for the rule, as this court has often
explained, is that there is only one record and there are seven
judges.  It is impractical, and often times impossible, for all
seven judges to attempt to pass around the one record, and this
court will not do so. Id.  It is appellant's burden to present an
abstract that sufficiently demonstrates reversible error. Burgess
v. Burgess, 286 Ark. 497, 696 S.W.2d 312 (1985).
     Affirmed.
     Dudley, J., not participating.