McAdams v. Automotive Rentals, Inc.
| Decision Date | 24 June 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-85,96-85 |
| Citation | 324 Ark. 332,924 S.W.2d 464 |
| Parties | Bobby Joe McADAMS, Attorney in Fact for Shelby L. McAdams and Theresa McAdams, and Bob McAdams, Appellants, v. AUTOMOTIVE RENTALS, INC., Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
C.W. Patty, Jr., North Little Rock, pro se.
James H. Penick, III, Little Rock, for Appellee.
Appellants bring this appeal from a chancellor's order entered in a foreclosure action. This court affirmed a previous appeal by the appellants in this case because of a flagrantly deficient abstract. McAdams v. Automotive Rentals, Inc., 319 Ark. 254, 891 S.W.2d 52 (1995). We again affirm without reaching the merits of appellants' appeal.
This case arose from a foreclosure action filed by Twin City Bank against Bobby Joe McAdams (McAdams) and other parties that held liens against McAdams' property. Twin City's mortgage was deemed first in priority and was subsequently assigned to Shelby and Theresa McAdams, the brother and sister-in-law of Bobby Joe McAdams. After a sale was ordered, Shelby and Theresa McAdams purchased the property, giving what they later claimed to be a conditional bid in the amount of $166,960.72. The chancellor determined that appellee Automotive Rentals, Inc. (ARI), was second in priority and therefore entitled to any excess proceeds from the sale of the property in a September 17, 1993 order. The McAdamses apparently attempted to appeal from this order in their prior appeal. The chancellor also determined in a March 10, 1994 order that McAdams was entitled to a homestead exemption if he proved within five months that he intended to use the excess proceeds to procure another homestead. ARI appealed from this order. These appeals were consolidated. The McAdamses' appeal was dismissed by mandate dated February 28, 1995, because of a deficient abstract. McAdams, supra. Upon remand, the chancellor determined that all prior orders had become final, non-appealable orders and are the law of the case, that McAdams had failed to timely prove that he was going to use any excess proceeds towards another homestead, that his homestead exemption would be extinguished and that ARI would therefore be entitled to anyexcess proceeds. This order was entered on August 9, 1995. The McAdamses now appeal from this order.
All five points raised by the McAdamses, to the extent they can be understood, appear to take issue with orders, deeds and other matters which transpired in 1993 and 1994, prior to the first appeal of this case. Not all of these prior orders are abstracted. Three of the points do not even allege that the trial court erred with regard to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cloird v. State
...the doctrine of law of the case does not apply. Before we leave this issue, we must address the holding in McAdams v. Automotive Rentals, Inc., 324 Ark. 332, 924 S.W.2d 464, cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1013, 117 S.Ct. 522, 136 L.Ed.2d 409 (1996), which runs contrary to the holdings in Colbert an......
-
City of West Memphis v. City of Marion
...the Court for decision." The purpose of an abstract is to give us an understanding of the issues on appeal. McAdams v. Automotive Rentals, Inc., 324 Ark. 332, 924 S.W.2d 464 (1996). We may affirm for noncompliance with the Rule when there is a flagrantly deficient Id. at 44-45, 945 S.W.2d a......
-
Porter v. Porter
...the Court for decision." The purpose of an abstract is to give us an understanding of the issues on appeal. McAdams v. Automotive Rentals, Inc., 324 Ark. 332, 924 S.W.2d 464 (1996). We may affirm for noncompliance with the Rule when there is a flagrantly deficient In the matter before us fo......