Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Charlie Von Garrett and Dyana Garrett

Annotate this Case
04-1184

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES v. Charlie Von GARRETT and Dyana Garrett

04-1184

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered December 9, 2004

Appeal & error - case remanded to settle record - clerk directed to accept transcript. - Where the record on appeal included a transcript that was prepared by a temporary court reporter who was not licensed when the transcript was prepared, the case was remanded to the trial court to settle the record; in the interest of justice, the supreme court also directed the clerk of the court to accept the transcript if attorneys for both parties certify by affidavit that the transcripts are true, accurate, and complete.

Motion for Rule on the Clerk; case remanded to settle the record.

Gray Allen Turner, for appellant.

No response.

Per Curiam. The Arkansas Department of Human Services ("DHS") submitted a motion for rule on the clerk when the clerk of this court refused to accept the record tendered in this case. The record in this appeal includes a transcript that was prepared by Megan Smith. Ms. Smith was assigned as a temporary court reporter. Ms. Smith was not a licensed court reporter when the transcript was prepared. The clerk of the court correctly refused to accept the record. See Cranfill,M.D.v. Union Planters Bank, N.A., Ark. , 123 S.W.3d 122 (2003). DHS moved that we accept the transcript as proffered in this case or that we remand this case to the trial court to settle the record. Appellees did not file a response.

We hereby remand this case to the trial court to settle the record. The specific facts of this case require a record to be lodged so that we can properly decide the case. In the interest of justice, we also direct the clerk of this court to accept the transcript if the attorneys for both parties certify by affidavit that the transcripts are true, accurate, and complete. Cranfill, supra.

Case remanded to settle the record.

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.