Holder v. Stokes
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2011 Ark. 95
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No.
10-1198
Opinion Delivered
March 3, 2011
GARY WAYNE HOLDER,
APPELLANT,
VS.
RALPH STOKES,
APPELLEE,
REBRIEFING ORDERED;
APPELLEE’S PETITION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
REPLY BRIEF MOOT.
PER CURIAM
Appellant Gary Wayne Holder appeals from the circuit court’s order finding that the
real property in dispute passed directly to appellee Ralph Stokes by right of survivorship upon
the death of his spouse, Dorothy Stokes. Holder argues on appeal that the circuit court
erroneously applied the right of survivorship when making its determination, rather than
distributing the property according to Ark. Code Ann. § 28-12-101 (Repl. 2004). However,
Holder’s brief is not in compliance with our rules because several documents vital to the
analysis of this case were not included in the addendum. As a result, we cannot consider the
appeal at this time and order rebriefing.
Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(8)(A)(i) states in pertinent part:
The addendum must include the following documents:
....
all motions . . . responses, replies, exhibits, and related briefs, concerning the order,
judgment, or ruling challenged on appeal.
Cite as 2011 Ark. 95
....
any document essential to an understanding of the case and the issues on appeal, such
as a will, contract, lease, note, insurance policy, trust, or other writing
....
any other pleading or document in the record that is essential for the appellate court
to confirm its jurisdiction, to understand the case, and to decide the issues on appeal.
The following were not included in the addendum: (1) the trial briefs of each party,
containing their arguments to the circuit court; (2) the deeds conveying the relevant property
to Dorothy and Ralph Stokes; and (3) all the relevant probate documents—including the last
will and testament of Dorothy Stokes. Accordingly, we order appellant to file a substituted
abstract, addendum, and brief curing the deficiencies in the addendum within fifteen days
from the date of entry of this order. We consider our foregoing identification of essential and
missing items to, in no way, be an exclusive or exhaustive list, and therefore strongly
encourage appellate counsel, prior to filing the substituted brief, abstract, and addendum to
review our rules as well as the substituted addendum and brief to ensure that no additional
deficiencies are present. If Holder fails to do so within the prescribed time, the order appealed
from may be affirmed for noncompliance with Rule 4-2. See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3).
After service of the substituted abstract, addendum, and brief, the appellee shall have an
opportunity to revise or supplement his brief in the time prescribed by the clerk.1
Rebriefing ordered; appellee’s petition for extension of time to file reply brief moot.
1
As the appellee will have a chance to file a brief after a substituted brief is filed by the
appellant, appellee’s petition for extension of time to file reply brief is moot.
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.
