Joyce Blake et al. v. Jimmy Williams et al.

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, JUDGE

DIVISION II

JOYCE BLAKE ET AL.

APPELLANTS

V.

JIMMY WILLIAMS ET AL.

APPELLEES

CA00-431

January 24, 2001

APPEAL FROM THE SHARP COUNTY CHANCERY COURT

[NO. E-97-223]

HON. THOMAS HILBURN,

CHANCELLOR

AFFIRMED

The appellants in this chancery case filed an action alleging that they were residents of Ozark Acres, which is apparently a residential development located in Sharp County, Arkansas. Appellants further alleged that the Ozark Acres Suburban Improvement District had wrongfully denied appellants access to lakefront easements by selling those easements to third parties by an improper procedure and for inadequate consideration. After a hearing, the chancellor found that the Ozark Acres Suburban Improvement District had the authority to transfer the property in question, and that there was adequate consideration for the transfer. From that decision, comes this appeal.

For reversal, appellants contend that the chancellor erred in finding that the Ozark Acres Suburban Improvement District had the authority to convey real estate designated for easement purposes. We affirm.

Appellants' argument is premised on the assertion that the property in question was intended to provide homeowners with easements to the lake. Appellants argue that this intention is evident from examination of the plat and other exhibits presented to the chancellor at trial. However, although the names of these documents are listed in appellants' abstract, the content of the documents has neither been abstracted nor reproduced. Consequently, we are unable to determine the veracity of the assertion underlying appellants' argument, and therefore cannot determine whether that argument is correct. Furthermore, although the manner in which the Ozark Acres Suburban Improvement District was organized is not clear from the record as abstracted, appellants concede that it comes within Ark. Code Ann. § 14-92-223 (Repl. 1998), which provides that:

Any land that may be acquired by any improvement district organized under this subchapter may be sold by the board of commissioners for the price and on the terms it deems best.

It is the appellants' burden to bring up a record sufficient to demonstrate error, and the record on appeal is confined to that which is abstracted. Swadley v. Krugler, 67 Ark. App. 297, 999 S.W.2d 209 (1999). Nothing in the record before us demonstrates that the chancellor erred in finding that the Ozark Acres Suburban Improvement District had the authority to transfer the property in question.

In Kingsbury v. Robertson, 325 Ark. 12, 923 S.W.2d 273 (1996), Justice Glaze noted that Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(6) requires that exhibits necessary for a clear understanding of a case must be included in an abstract and that, when such exhibits are not included in the abstract, the appellate court will summarily affirm.

Affirmed.

Griffen and Roaf, JJ., agree.