Annual Recommendations of the Committee on Civil Practice

Per Curiam Opinion Delivered June 20, 2013
2013 Ark. 278

Click here for the full text:

This per curiam contains the recommendations of the Supreme Court’s Civil Practice Committee for rule changes.  The per curiam contains the proposed changes in a line-out format so it is easy to see what amendments are proposed.   Many of the changes are minor matters.  One change clarifies that motions in the appellate courts need not be bound like a brief, but can simply be stapled in the corner.   A prior change to Rule 2-1 said that motions had to be bound like a brief, but in practice the clerk’s office preferred that motions only be stapled to make it easier to scan them to a PDF.   Another change requires only one redacted copy of a brief that includes confidential information under Administrative Order 19.    Rule 4-1 and 4-4.   Another change (Rule 4-2) requires that multi-volume briefs be clearly labeled by volume.   The court’s practice that an appeal will not be dismissed upon motions of the parties or notice of settlement if the appeal has been submitted for decision is now codified in Rule 4-4(e).

Rule 6 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure – Civil is amended to say that stipulations or motions to supplement the record must be made within 30 days of the filing of the opening brief.

Rule 9 of the District Court Rules is amended extensively to clarify the process for bringing an appeal from a district court to a circuit court.

Lastly, the committee recommended some changes to the official probate forms.

Comments on the suggested rules changes should be made in writing before July 31, 2013 to:

Leslie W. Steen, Clerk, Supreme Court of Arkansas

Attn.: Civil Procedure Rules

Justice Building

625 Marshall Street

Little Rock, Arkansas 72201

New Cover Sheets Required for Appeals

“The Clerk of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals is implementing a new case
management system, and in connection with this system, the clerk studied the use of cover
sheets in initiating cases. Cover sheets have been in use in our circuit courts for a number of
years, but they are not required in our appellate courts. The clerk has determined that in
performing the various tasks required when a case is opened and for subsequent case
management, a cover sheet to accompany an initial filing would be beneficial.”


Effective August 1, 2013, any record or initial pleading filed in the appellate court must also include a cover sheet.  The Administrative Office of the Courts will be responsible for the contents and format of the cover sheet.

Hollandsworth Presumption Applies to Joint Legal Custody (Based on a 5-4 decision of the Court of Appeals)

The Arkansas Court of Appeals continues to grapple with the application of Hollandsworth v. Knyzweski, 353 Ark. 470, 109 S.W.3d 653 (2003).   Hollandsworth announced a presumption in favor of a custodial parent’s relocation, and that relocation alone would not constitute a material change of circumstances to justify a change of custody.   But even after the Supreme Court’s decision in Hollandsworth, this issue is still the subject of much disagreement, as evidenced by the rare nine-judge decision today from an en banc Arkansas Court of Appeals.

In Bishop v. Singletary, 2013 Ark. App. 394, Judge Wynne was joined by Judges Walmsley, Glover and Hixon, with Judge Brown concurring, in reversing a trial court’s change of custody when the mother proposed to move out-of-state. The mother and father shared joint legal custody, but the mother had primary physical custody.   The trial court ruled that the Hollandsworth presumption did not apply in this circumstance, and granted a change of custody to the father. The five judge majority reversed, finding that the move was not a material change and that the trial court was obligated to apply Hollandsworth, even in a joint legal custody situation.

But four other judges on the court dissented.  Chief Judge Gladwin framed the issue as whether the joint custody arrangement was a question of fact or question of law.  He viewed it as a question of fact, and would affirm based on the standard of review because he could not say the trial court’s decision was clearly erroneous.  Notably, Chief Judge Gladwin’s dissent argues that the Hollandsworth presumption need not apply under these circumstances.

The three remaining judges on the case (Wood, Harrison, and Gruber) joined in a dissent disagreeing with both the majority opinion and Gladwin’s dissent.  Their take on the issue was this:

“Based on the testimony and the decree, the court found that the parents had a true joint-custody arrangement and that neither was entitled to the Hollandsworth presumption.  This finding was not clearly against the preponderance of the evidence, and we should affirm.”

It will be interesting to see if the Supreme Court takes this case on review to attempt to bring some certainty to this issue.  The full text of today’s decision in Bishop v. Singletary is available here:

New Rule 1-8 Effective August 1, 2013

Starting August 1st, all briefs and motions filed in Arkansas appellate courts must also include a PDF file.   Here is an excerpt from the new rule:


(a) Motions, petitions, writs, briefs, responses, and replies filed in the appellate court, except those filed by a party proceeding pro se or by a party who by court order has been allowed to prosecute the suit in forma pauperis, shall be submitted with an electronic copy of those documents in Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF).  Submissions in PDF of circuit court records or parts of records filed in the appellate court is encouraged but not required.  Submission of PDF documents in text-searchable Adobe Portable Document Format is also encouraged by not required.

The new rule also proscribes requirements for naming the electronic file.   For now, section (f) requires the PDF files be submitted on a disc or flash drive.  The Reporters Notes state this is a “transitional step toward the anticipated requirement of electronic filing of documents in the Arkansas appellate courts (See Administrative Order 21 – Electronic Filing).   The full per curiam can be found here: Rule 1-8



Electronic Filing in Arkansas Appeals

From the Arkansas Judiciary website:

In anticipation of coming e-filing, the Supreme Court will allow filers to submit electronic versions of filings in addition to traditional paper filings, starting August 1. Pilot program for electronic briefs will end July 31.

8th Circuit Affirms Substantial Default Judgment, Strikes Arguments Made for the First Time in Reply Brief

Congratulations to Matt Lindsay for prevailing in this appeal.   The short per curiam decision has limited precedential value, but it is interesting that the panel granted our motion to strike parts of the appellant’s reply brief where they raised arguments that were not developed in their opening brief.   The case is Piaquadio v. American Legal Funding (8th Cir. 12-1952).

Click here for the full text of the decision: 2013-6-11 Decision

Summary Judgment Affirmed in Malpractice Case Based on “Locality Rule.” Arguments Raised for the First Time in a Motion for Reconsideration Will Not Be Considered on Appeal.

This decision handed down today (June 5, 2013) by the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s order granting summary judgment in a malpractice case.  The plaintiff developed an infection at an epidural site.  She alleged the infection would not have occurred but for negligence in prepping and sterilizing the site.  There was also a claim that there was no informed consent for a student to administer the epidural.   The defense submitted affidavits in support of summary judgment.  The plaintiff submitted counter-affidavits from experts (an anesthesiologist, a CRNA, and a registered nurse).  The trial court ruled in favor of the defense, holding that the plaintiff’s expert affidavits did not satisfy the “locality rule” or meet their burden on proximate cause:

The circuit court granted the appellees’ motion for summary judgment, finding that the Quattlebaums’ experts’ affidavits failed to properly establish the standard of care required of the appellees. Specifically, regarding the failure-to-sterilize claim, the circuit court found that the “conclusory statements of familiarity” with local standards did not satisfy the locality rule found in Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-114-106(b). Moreover, the court found that the affidavits did not provide evidence of a breach of the requisite standard of care. Finally, the court determined that the Quattlebaums’ experts did not provide evidence of proximate cause, and the Quattlebaums had not proven the elements necessary to apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. As to the claim of lack of informed consent, the circuit court again found that the affidavits did not satisfy the locality rule; in addition, the court concluded that there was no evidence of proximate cause of any damages resulting from the performance of the procedures by the student nurse-anesthetist rather than by the anesthesiologist.

The plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider, arguing that the defense expert affidavits were conclusory, contained no admissible evidence, no facts about the plaintiff’s treatment, no mention of their familiarity with the standard of care in Little Rock, and were not stated to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.   (But see Muccio v. Hunt, 2012 Ark. 416 on use of the “motion for reconsideration”).  On appeal, the Court refused to address those arguments, holding:

These arguments, however, were made for the first time in the Quattlebaums’ motion
for reconsideration. It is well settled that our appellate courts will not consider an argument
made for the first time in a posttrial motion. See Lee v. Daniel, 350 Ark. 466, 91 S.W.3d 464
(2002); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Lee, 348 Ark. 707, 74 S.W.3d 634 (2002); Rose v. Rose, 2013
Ark. App. 256, ___ S.W.3d ___. An issue must be presented to the trial court at the earliest
opportunity in order to preserve it for appeal. Plymate v. Martinelli, 2013 Ark. 194 (refusing
to address an argument concerning the constitutionality of section 16-114-206 where it was
not raised until the plaintiff’s motion for new trial or for reconsideration). Stated another
way, a party may not wait until the outcome of a case to bring an error to the trial court’s
attention. LaFont v. Mooney Mixon, 2010 Ark. 450, 374 S.W.3d 668. The Quattlebaums did
not raise the specific arguments they make on appeal until their motion for reconsideration.
They were not timely raised and are not preserved for our review on appeal, and we
therefore affirm.

The case is Quattlebaum v. McCarver, et al., 2013 Ark. App. 376.  Here is the link:

A Sharply Divided Arkansas Supreme Court on Preservation Pitfalls

On May 16, 2013, the Arkansas Supreme Court issued a decision in TEMCO v. Gann, 2013 Ark. 202.   Like many decisions this term, the Court was sharply divided, with two dissents joined by three members of the Court.  The crux of the decision was whether three of the four points raised on appeal were preserved for appellate review.  Quoting from the 4-judge majority:

In summary, we reiterate that the motion to dismiss was based on several grounds, yet the circuit court granted dismissal based on only one of those several grounds—that the complaint was barred by statute, specifically section 18-44-115(a)(4), due to TEMCO’s failure to give sufficient notice. That is the only ruling the circuit court made. TEMCO argues reversal based on other arguments that were raised below, but not ruled on. As Appellant, it was TEMCO’s burden to obtain or insist on rulings on issues it desired to have reviewed on appeal. See Meador v. Total Compliance Consultants, Inc., 2013 Ark. 22, ___ S.W.3d ___; see also Ghegan & Ghegan, 345 Ark. 514, 49 S.W.3d 652. Alpha Marketing and Ground Zero are very clear that this court will not presume rulings based on a trial court’s silence. Ghegan & Ghegan is very clear that we will not presume a ruling based on a trial court’s general observations. This court is bound to follow these cases and is therefore precluded from reaching the merits of the arguments raised in this appeal, save the attorneys’ fees argument which is rendered without merit due to our summary affirmance.
The orders of the circuit court are affirmed.

Compare that to the Chief Justice’s dissent (joined by Baker and Hart):

Here the circuit court stated that it had considered all arguments, pleadings, briefs, and exhibits and it ruled.  To now conclude that the circuit court did not rule, when it expressly states that it did rule, is error. This decision puts counsel in an untenable position that counsel will be held responsible for the failure to obtain a ruling under the very narrow principles set out by the majority. This means that counsel must persuade the circuit-court judge that an extremely detailed, and finite written order must be issued. While counsel are sometimes assigned by the circuit court to draft a precedent, that is not always the case. Even if counsel were to always draft the precedent, there will be disputes between counsel and the circuit court, which will result in matters coming before this court under its original jurisdiction. This court will be faced with petitions to compel the circuit court to act in a manner that counsel believes is required by the majority’s decision. Overcrowded circuit-court dockets and overworked circuit-court judges will be compelled to engage in needless extra work. Counsel will be put in the unenviable position of having to challenge circuit judges before whom they customarily practice.

COMMENTARY:  This decision illustrates the difficulty counsel faces whenever more than one issue is raised to a trial court in a summary judgment or motion to dismiss context.  TEMCO holds that the following language:

“[t]he parties came before this Court to be heard on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Upon consideration of all arguments, pleadings, briefs, and exhibits, this Court finds that the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss should be and hereby is GRANTED.”

is not good enough to to preserve alternative arguments that were raised, briefed and argued. Counsel must find a way to obtain a detailed and specific ruling on all alternative arguments that were raised, even if those arguments are not the basis for the trial court’s ruling.  The Chief Justice’s dissent says this will put counsel in the “untenable” position of routinely forcing trial courts to issue “extremely detailed and finite written order[s]” on arguments they have summarily rejected.

The full decision can be found here: