Erwin v. Frost
Cases that cite this one
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- Absolute Care Mgmt. v. Stacy (Ark. Ct. App. 2017)
- Davis v. Schneider National, Inc. (Ark. Ct. App. 2013)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 440
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No.CV-12-953
Opinion Delivered August 28, 2013
LORI ERWIN APPEAL FROM THE SCOTT APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. CV-2010-34] V.
HONORABLE DAVID H.
SHELBY LEE FROST, INDIVIDUALLY MCCORMICK, JUDGE AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE DONALD
ROSS AND SHELBY LEE FROST
REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST
APPELLEE REBRIEFING ORDERED
BRANDON J. HARRISON, Judge
Lori Erwin filed a complaint seeking to have a trust created by her late father and her stepmother declared irrevocable. The circuit court denied the request, and Erwin appealed that denial. We will not yet decide this appeal’s merits because we must order rebriefing. There are two main hang-ups. One is Erwin’s abstract, which is presented in question-and-answer format; Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(5)(B) (2012) expressly forbids this. Second, Erwin’s addendum contains the entire transcript of the proceedings below; Rule 4-2(a)(8) forbids that. An abstract and addendum can be deficient for containing too much material, as well as too little. Am. Transp. Corp. v. Exch. Capital Corp., 84 Ark. App. 28, 129 S.W.3d 312 (2003). Though an addendum’s particular contents are often a matter of judgment that poses no problem, we have expressly warned that Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 440 “[t]ranscripts—whether of testimony at trial or on deposition or of hearings—must be converted into an impartial first-person narrative in the abstract. Transcripts should not be in the addendum.” Lackey v. Mays, 100 Ark. App. 386, 389, 269 S.W.3d 397, 399 (2007).
Erwin has fifteen days from this opinion’s date to file a substituted brief that complies with the rules. See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3). We strongly encourage Erwin to review the rules and ensure that no other deficiencies exist. A subsequent failure to timely correct all deficiencies in her appellant’s brief may result in the circuit court’s judgment being summarily affirmed. See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(c)(2). After Erwin has served her substituted appellant’s brief on Appellee Frost, then Frost may revise or supplement her appellee’s brief if need be.
Rebriefing ordered.
GLADWIN, C.J., and WALMSLEY, J., agree.
Hatfield & Sayre, by: Christopher D. Brockett and Eugene G. Sayre, for appellant.
Walters, Gaston, Allison & Parker, by: Troy Gaston, for appellee.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.