D. Hawkins, Inc. v. Schumacher
| Decision Date | 13 November 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-773,94-773 |
| Citation | 322 Ark. 437,909 S.W.2d 640 |
| Parties | D. HAWKINS, INC., Appellant, v. Lance SCHUMACHER and Evelyn Schumacher, His Wife, Appellees. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
M. Douglas Wood, Sherwood, for appellant.
Appellant, D. Hawkins, Incorporated, appeals the amended order of the Pulaski County Circuit Court, entered March 22, 1994, ordering it, as a resident of this state and judgment debtor, to comply with Arkansas Code Annotated § 16-66-221 (Supp.1993) by filing a properly verified schedule of property with the circuit court. Jurisdiction of this appeal is properly in this court pursuant to Ark.Sup.Ct.R. 1-2(a)(3) and (d)(1).
Appellant raises three arguments for reversal: first, that a corporation is not a "resident" within the meaning of section 16-66-221, second, that section 16-66-221 is a penal statute that must be strictly construed, and, third, that the interrogatories of appellees, Lance and Evelyn Schumacher, are overly broad and request confidential information. Pursuant to Ark.Sup.Ct.R. 4-2(a)(6), we hold that appellant's abstract in this one-brief case is flagrantly deficient and we summarily affirm the trial court's judgment for noncompliance with the rule. Ark.Sup.Ct.R. 4-2(b)(2).
Appellant's complete abstract consists of a recitation of section 16-66-221, in its entirety, together with the following three paragraphs, which we quote from the abstract:
A. (Amended Order dated March 22, 1994--page 164.)
B. "The Court finds that there is no privilege of confidentiality existing between the Defendant and its clients protecting the confidentiality of financial records of persons not a party to this litigation and therefore orders the Defendant to make available all buyers and sellers settlement statements for property closings conducted by the Defendant, D. Hawkins, Inc., for a period of one year prior to the judgment date, of October 20, 1993 for inspection and/or copying by the Plaintiff at the office of the Defendant during normal business hours." (Amended Order dated March 22, 1994--page 165).
C. A transcript of hearing conducted on the 18th day of February, 1994 (pages 181 through 190).
Our rules require that the abstract contain only the information in the transcript that is "necessary to an understanding of all questions presented to the Court for decision." Carmical v. City of Beebe, 316 Ark. 208, 209, 871 S.W.2d 386, 387 (1994) (quoting Rule 4-2(a)(6)). A summary of the pleadings and judgment appealed are the bare essentials of an abstract. Bohannon v. Arkansas State Bd....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coleman's Service Center, Inc. v. F.D.I.C.
...to be flagrantly deficient, the judgment or decree may be affirmed for noncompliance with the rule. See D. Hawkins, Inc. v. Schumacher, 322 Ark. 437, 438, 909 S.W.2d 640 (1995); Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Scanlon, 319 Ark. 758, 761, 894 S.W.2d 885 (1995); Stroud Crop, Inc. v. Hagler, 317 Ark.......
-
Childs v. Adams
... ... 1 E.g., Houston Dairy, Inc. v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 643 F.2d 1185 (5th Cir.1981); 2 Richard A. Lord, Williston on ... ...
-
Cannon v. State
...held that a summary of the pleadings and the judgment appealed from are the bare essentials of an abstract. D. Hawkins, Inc. v. Schumacher, 322 Ark. 437, 909 S.W.2d 640 (1995). This court does not presume error simply because an appeal is made. Mayo v. State, 324 Ark. 328, 920 S.W.2d 843 (1......
-
Winters v. Elders, 95-1069
...Ark.Sup.Ct.R. 4-2(a)(6). We have long held that the judgment appealed from is a bare essential of an abstract. D. Hawkins, Inc. v. Schumacher, 322 Ark. 437, 909 S.W.2d 640 (1995); Bohannon v. Arkansas State Bd. of Nursing, 320 Ark. 169, 895 S.W.2d 923 (1995); Logan County v. Tritt, 302 Ark.......