Stewart v. Herring (Majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 580 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CV-15-1 Opinion Delivered October 21, 2015 TIERRA STEWART and RANDALL APPEAL FROM THE DREW STEWART COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT APPELLANTS [NO. CV-2012-0058-4] V. HONORABLE DON GLOVER, JUDGE ESTATE OF BOBBY NOLAN HERRING SUPPLEMENTAL ADDENDUM APPELLEE ORDERED BRANDON J. HARRISON, Judge Tierra and Randall Stewart appeal a June 2014 circuit court order awarding Bobby Herring’s guardianship estate a $42,355 judgment against Tierra individually and a $9,900 judgment against Tierra and Randall. We do not reach the merits of the Stewarts’ appeal because of addendum deficiencies. Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(8) requires an addendum to contain all documents in the record that “are essential for the appellate court to confirm its jurisdiction, to understand the case, and to decide the issues on appeal.” Specifically, the rule requires the appellant to include in the addendum “any motion to extend the time to file the record on appeal, and any related response, reply, or exhibit” and “any order extending the time to file the record on appeal.” Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(8)(A)(i) (2015). 1 Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 580 The Stewarts have failed to include the motion and order to extend the time to file the record on appeal in their addendum. Also missing from the addendum are all pleadings and orders filed in the case, including ones about default judgment. The appealed June 2014 order expressly considers Plaintiff’s Exhibits 8, 9, 10, and 11, and Defendant’s Exhibit 13. We therefore need copies in the addendum of all the exhibits the circuit court referenced in its June 2014 order and any of the 35 trial exhibits that are necessary for us to understand and decide the appeal. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(8)(A)(i). We direct the Stewarts to correct these deficiencies by filing a supplemental addendum within seven calendar days from the date of this opinion. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 42(b)(4). The list of deficiencies mentioned here is not necessarily an exhaustive one. We encourage the Stewarts to review our rules before filing a supplemental addendum and correct any deficiencies or inaccuracies in addition to those that we have mentioned specifically. Supplemental addendum ordered. ABRAMSON and BROWN, JJ., agree. Joseph P. Mazzanti III, for appellants. Hashem Law Firm, PLC, by: Hani W. Hashem, for appellee. 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.
