Hollingsworth v. Hollingsworth
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 706
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CA 09-125
Opinion Delivered
NEAL HOLLINGSWORTH
APPELLANT
V.
COURTNEY HOLLINGSWORTH
APPELLEE
OCTOBER 28, 2009
APPEAL FROM THE WASHINGTON
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
[NO. DR-08-1151-5]
HONORABLE GARY L. CARSON,
JUDGE
REBRIEFING ORDERED
JOHN B. ROBBINS, Judge
Appellant Neal Hollingsworth appeals from the trial court’s order denying his petition
for grandparental visitation rights. Because Mr. Hollingsworth has submitted a brief without
a proper addendum in violation of Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(8), we order
rebriefing.
Rule 4-2(a)(8) provides, in pertinent part:
Following the signature and certificate of service, the appellant’s brief shall contain an
Addendum which shall include true and legible photocopies of the order, judgment,
decree, ruling, letter opinion, or Workers’ Compensation Commission opinion from
which the appeal is taken, along with any other relevant pleadings, documents, or
exhibits essential to an understanding of the case and the Court’s jurisdiction on
appeal.
The procedure to be followed when an appellant has submitted an insufficient abstract or
addendum is set forth in Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(b)(3):
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 706
Whether or not the appellee has called attention to deficiencies in the appellant’s
abstract or Addendum, the Court may address the question at any time. If the Court
finds the abstract or Addendum to be deficient such that the Court cannot reach the
merits of the case, or such as to cause an unreasonable or unjust delay in the
disposition of the appeal, the Court will notify the appellant that he or she will be
afforded an opportunity to cure any deficiencies, and has fifteen days within which to
file a substituted abstract, Addendum, and brief, at his or her own expense, to conform
to Rule 4-2(a)(5) and (8). Mere modifications of the original brief by the appellant,
as by interlineation, will not be accepted by the Clerk. Upon the filing of such a
substituted brief by the appellant, the appellee will be afforded an opportunity to revise
or supplement the brief, at the expense of the appellant or the appellant’s counsel, as
the Court may direct. If after the opportunity to cure the deficiencies, the appellant
fails to file a complying abstract, Addendum and brief within the prescribed time, the
judgment or decree may be affirmed for noncompliance with the Rule.
Here, Mr. Hollingsworth’s brief is deficient due to the fact that his addendum lacks
relevant pleadings essential to an understanding of the case. In particular, the addendum fails
to include Mr. Hollingsworth’s petition to establish grandparental visitation rights, as well as
appellee Courtney Hollingsworth’s response to the motion.
Because Mr. Hollingsworth has failed to comply with our rules, we order him to file
a substituted addendum and brief within fifteen days from the date of entry of this order. If
he fails to do so within the prescribed time, the order appealed from may be affirmed for
noncompliance with Rule 4-2. After service of the substituted addendum and brief,
Ms. Hollingsworth shall have an opportunity to revise or supplement her brief in the time
prescribed by the clerk.
Rebriefing ordered.
KINARD and HENRY, 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.
