Elizabeth Perry ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
I attest to the accuracy and DIVISION I
integrity of this document No. CV-20-478
2023.06.27 15:49:05 -05'00'
2023.001.20174 Opinion Delivered May 26, 2021
MISTY FOX APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
APPELLANT THIRTEENTH DIVISION
V. [NO. 60DR-15-2780]
ERIC FOX HONORABLE W. MICHAEL REIF,
JUDGE
APPELLEE
REMANDED TO SETTLE AND
SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD;
REBRIEFING ORDERED
WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge
Appellant Misty Fox appeals from a postdivorce domestic-relations order entered on
March 24, 2020, that resolved all pending motions between Misty and appellee Eric Fox.
On appeal, Misty argues the circuit court erred by (1) finding her in contempt on various
grounds; (2) not finding Eric in contempt for failing to exercise visitation and custody and
failing to timely submit to a deposition; (3) calculating the incorrect amount of child support
and alimony; and (4) modifying visitation. We cannot reach the merits of her arguments at
this time. Due to deficiencies, we must remand the case to settle and supplement the record
and also order rebriefing.
Misty’s second contempt-based argument on appeal is that the circuit court erred by
finding her in contempt for violating the parties’ August 2019 visitation order. Specifically,
the circuit court found,
Mother is found in contempt for violating the August 8, 2019 Order by not doing
the child exchanges in Conway in August 2019.
Neither the addendum nor the record presented on appeal includes an August 2019
order. However, the parties indicate that the August 8, 2019 “order” that the court
references is actually an oral ruling from a hearing held on that date. The written order from
that hearing was entered on September 10. Misty argues that “a judgment or decree is
effective only when so set forth and entered as provided in Administrative Order No. 2.” 1
She contends that because the order requiring child exchanges to take place in Conway for
the August 30 through September 2, 2019 visitation weekend was not yet entered at the
time of her alleged contumacious action, it was not effective; consequently, she could not
be held in contempt.
In order to establish contempt, there must be willful disobedience of a valid order of
the court. 2 The order must be definite in its terms and clear about what duties it imposes. 3
Eric asserts that the August 8 oral ruling clearly ordered Misty to exchange the child in
Conway for the August 30 visitation weekend. He contends that because Misty willfully
disobeyed the clear and definite directive of the court issued on August 8 by failing to
exchange in Conway, the circuit court’s contempt finding should be upheld.
1
See Ark. R. Civ. P. 58.
2
Potter v. Holmes,
2
We have previously held that if anything material to either party is omitted from the
record by error or accident, we may direct that the omission be corrected and that a
supplemental record be certified and transmitted. 4 Because the record on appeal is missing
the transcript of the August 8, 2019 proceeding, we remand to settle and supplement the
record on this basis.
Furthermore, Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(5) (2019) provides:
The appellant shall create an abstract of the material parts of all the transcripts
(stenographically reported material) in the record. Information in a transcript is
material if the information is essential for the appellate court to confirm its
jurisdiction, to understand the case, and to decide the issues on appeal.
Without addressing the merit of Misty’s argument, we find the transcript of the hearing held
on August 8, 2019, referenced by the circuit court in its contempt finding on this issue and
discussed in depth by both parties, necessary to fully evaluate and decide this particular issue
on appeal.
We remand to the circuit court to settle and supplement the record with the omitted
August 8, 2019 hearing transcript within thirty days. We also order Misty to file a
substituted brief curing the abstracting deficiency within fifteen days from the date that the
supplemental record is filed. 5 We encourage Misty to carefully review our rules to ensure
that no other deficiencies exist, as any subsequent rebriefing order may result in affirmance
of the order or judgment due to noncompliance with Rule 4-2. 6
4
Green v. State,
.
5
Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3).
6
See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3); see also Carter v. Cline,
2011 Ark. 266
(per curiam).
3
Remanded to settle and supplement the record; rebriefing ordered.
GLADWIN and VAUGHT, JJ., agree.
Pinnacle Law Firm, PLLC, by: Matthew D. Campbell, for appellant.
LaCerra, Dickson, Hoover & Rogers, PLLC, by; Natalie Dickson and Lauren Hoover, for
appellee.
4
