Gilder v. Cedar Ridge Farms LTD (Majority)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 544 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No. CV-12-951 Opinion Delivered DANNIE GILDER ET AL. APPELLANTS October 2, 2013 APPEAL FROM THE SALINE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. CV-2010-701] V. HONORABLE JOHN PLEGGE, JUDGE CEDAR RIDGE FARMS, LTD. APPELLEE REBRIEFING ORDERED BRANDON J. HARRISON, Judge In February 2011, the circuit court entered a default judgment against Dannie Gilder, LaDonna Gilder, and Dustion Gilder, d/b/a Dusty Gilder Barrel Horses or DG Farms (collectively Gilder ) after finding that Cedar Ridge Farms, Ltd., had properly served Gilder with a complaint and summons. A year later, Gilder asked the court to set aside the default judgment, arguing, among other things, that the summons was defective. Cedar Ridge opposed the effort. The court did not set aside the default judgment. Gilder appealed. Before addressing Gilder s arguments on appeal, we order that Gilder file a supplemental addendum. Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(8)(A) (2012) requires that Gilder s addendum contain all documents in the record on appeal that are essential for us to confirm jurisdiction, to understand the case, and to decide the issues on appeal. Gilder s current addendum does not satisfy the rule. For example, it does not include the complaint, the default judgment, the motions to set aside the default judgment, or the responses to those Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 544 motions. Any affidavits of service in the appeal record should also be included. Gilder has seven calendar days from this order s date to file a compliant supplemental addendum. See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(4). Gilder s counsel should review the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court, the record, and the current addendum to ensure no additional deficiencies exist. Rebriefing ordered. WYNNE and BROWN, JJ., agree. The Law Offices of Thomas Burns, P.A., by: Thomas Burns, for appellants. Baxter Law Firm, by: Ray Baxter, for appellees. 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.