Susan Williams ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
2019.01.04 DIVISION III
09:08:14 -06'00' No. CV-13-75
Opinion Delivered October 9, 2013
TIMOTHY ROGER SIMPSON, AS APPEAL FROM THE CRAIGHEAD
PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
THE ESTATE OF EDITH LAVERNE WESTERN DISTRICT
SIMPSON, DECEASED [NO. PR-10-131]
APPELLANT
HONORABLE PAMELA
V. HONEYCUTT, JUDGE
BOBBY SIMPSON ET AL.
APPELLEES REBRIEFING ORDERED
WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge
Appellant Timothy Roger Simpson, as the personal representative of the Estate of
Edith Laverne Simpson, deceased, appeals the September 5, 2012 order of the Craighead
Circuit Court setting aside Edith’s May 8, 2006 will.1 Appellant argues that the court erred
by setting the will aside. We do not reach the merits of appellant’s arguments due to
deficiencies in the abstract and brief.2
1
The order lists the date of the will as May 8, 2010, but it is clear that the will set aside
was created in 2006.
2
There are also deficiencies in appellant’s addendum, but appellees were diligent in
supplementing the addendum with the missing documents.
Cite as
Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(3)3 requires the appellant to list and separately
number the points relied upon for reversal of the judgment or decree. These points must be
concise and without argument. Here, appellant has failed to include the points on appeal in
the brief. We note that the index includes a page number for the points on appeal, but the
points are not found in the brief. Additionally, the second page of appellant’s jurisdictional
statement is missing from the brief.
Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(5) requires an abstract of stenographically
reported material that is essential for the appellate court to understand the case and to decide
the issues on appeal. The abstract must not contain a verbatim reproduction of the transcript
or use a question-and-answer format. Additionally, when abstracting the testimony the first
person (“I”) rather than the third person (“He or She”) must be used. Here, appellant has
included verbatim portions of the transcript in the abstract, including the question-and-answer
format, which is expressly forbidden. Appellant has also failed to use the first person when
abstracting some of the testimony.
We order appellant to submit a substituted brief, abstract, and addendum correcting
the above-referenced deficiencies within fifteen days. We encourage appellant to review Rule
4-2 of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals to ensure that the
substituted abstract, brief, and addendum comply with the rules and that no additional
deficiencies are present. After service of the substituted abstract, brief, and addendum,
3
(2012).
2
Cite as
appellees shall have an opportunity to revise or supplement its brief in the time prescribed by
the clerk, or to rely on the brief that it previously filed in this appeal.
Rebriefing ordered.
HARRISON and WYNNE, JJ., agree.
Dover and Zolper, by: Dennis M. Zolper, and Chrestman Group, PLLC, by: Keith L.
Chrestman, for appellant.
Dick Jarboe, for appellee.
3
