James Pilkinton v. Hope Pilkinton (Majority)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2018 Ark. App. 475 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. CV-17-910 JAMES W. PILKINTON Opinion Delivered October 3, 2018 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE BAXTER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 03DR-14-428-3] V. HONORABLE JOHN R. PUTMAN, JUDGE HOPE A. PILKINTON APPELLEE SUPPLEMENTAL ADDENDUM ORDERED PHILLIP T. WHITEAKER, Judge Appellant James Pilkinton and appellee Hope Pilkinton were divorced by a decree of the Baxter County Circuit Court. The final decree made a division of the couple’s marital and nonmarital property. On appeal, James argues that the circuit court erred in the manner in which it divided the property. Because of deficiencies in James’s addendum, however, we cannot reach the merits of his arguments at this time. The record in this case reflects that Hope filed a complaint for divorce from James, James filed a response and counterclaim for divorce, and Hope filed an answer to the counterclaim. These documents, however, are not in James’s addendum. Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(8)(A)(i) declares that the addendum “must include . . . the pleadings . . . on which the circuit court decided each issue: complaint, answer, counterclaim, reply to counterclaim, cross-claim, answer to cross-claim, third-party complaint, and answer to thirdparty complaint.” (Emphasis added.) This deficiency in James’s addendum must be addressed. We therefore order James to provide a supplemental addendum containing the required documents within seven calendar days. See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(4); Bingham v. C & L Elec. Coop., 2014 Ark. App. 553. We encourage counsel to review Rule 4-2 of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals to ensure that the brief complies with the rules and that no additional deficiencies are present. Supplemental addendum ordered. GRUBER, C.J., and BROWN, J., agree. Ballard & Ballard, P.A., by: Andrew D. Ballard, for appellant. Ethredge & Copeland, P.A., by: David L. Ethredge and Johnnie A. Copeland, 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.