FROM THE BAXTER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 03CV-05-383]
HONORABLE GORDON WEBB, JUDGE
P. Adams and Anne Marie Adams, pro se appellants.
Sanders, Morgan & Clarke PLLC, by: Roger L. Morgan and
Robert S. Clarke, for appellee.
Gruber, C.J., and Harrison, J., agree.
F. VIRDEN, JUDGE
John and Marie Adams appeal from the Baxter County Circuit
Court's order finding them in contempt for violating a
previous order instructing them to comply with restrictive
covenants and ordering them to pay $5, 000 in damages to
appellee Bill Moody, along with attorney's fees and costs
in the amount of $7, 710. The trial court also found that
there was insufficient evidence on which to find in favor of
the Adamses on their counterclaim. The Adamses argue that the
trial court erred in its decision. Because of deficiencies in
the Adamses' abstract, brief, and addendum, we order
case began with a complaint filed by Moody in December 2005
against his neighbors, the Adamses, for breach of restrictive
covenants. An order was entered on April 21, 2008, finding
the Adamses in violation of the restrictive covenants and
ordering them to comply with restrictive covenants by
removing one structure and debris within a certain time frame
and by finishing all the structures on their property and
bringing them into full compliance with the restrictive
covenants within a certain time frame. The Adamses appealed
to this court from the April 2008 order, and it was affirmed
on June 17, 2009. Adams v. Moody, 2009 Ark.App. 474,
324 S.W.3d 348.
Moody filed numerous petitions for contempt, and the trial
court found the Adamses in contempt on multiple occasions.
After having granted numerous continuances, the trial court
finally held a hearing and issued its December 7, 2016 order
granting Moody's most recent motion for contempt for
continued noncompliance with the April 2008 order. The trial
court ordered the Adamses to bring their structures into full
compliance by June 1, 2017, and ordered them to pay $5, 000
in damages and $7, 710 in attorney's fees and costs by
June 1, 2017. The trial court denied the Adamses'
"Counter Complaint, " in which they alleged that
Moody himself had violated the restrictive covenants. The
Adamses timely appealed from this order, but we cannot reach
the merits at this time due to briefing deficiencies.
Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(5) provides that the appellant
shall create an abstract of the material parts of all the
transcripts 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. Ark. Sup. Ct. R.
4-2(a)(5). The abstract shall be an impartial condensation,
without comment or emphasis, of the transcript. Ark. Sup. Ct.
R. 4-2(a)(5)(B). The abstract must not reproduce the
transcript verbatim. Id. In abstracting testimony,
the first person ("I"), rather than the third
person ("He" or "She"), shall be used.
Id. The question-and-answer format shall not be
used. Id. In a second or subsequent appeal, material
information from all transcripts filed in any prior appeal
must be abstracted. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(5)(C).
there are 152 pages of testimony in the record, the Adamses
included "excerpts" comprising four full pages. The
Adamses abstracted only testimony that they believed was
favorable to them and completely omitted Moody's
thirty-three pages of testimony. The ...