Cite as 2012 Ark. App. 104 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CA11-816 ANN SHULL BELL and NELSON Opinion Delivered February 1, 2012 KEITH BELL APPELLANTS APPEAL FROM THE LONOKE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. PR-2010-12] HONORABLE BARBARA ELMORE, BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. JUDGE APPELLEE REMANDED TO SETTLE THE RECORD; REBRIEFING ORDERED RITA W. GRUBER, Judge The appellants, Ann Shull Bell and her son Nelson Bell, bring this pro se appeal from an order of the Lonoke County Circuit Court approving a final accounting by appellee Bank of America, N.A., upon its resignation as trustee of the Shull Family Revocable Trust. We are unable to reach the merits of the Bells’ arguments because they failed to file a sufficient record for our review pursuant to Ark. R. App. P.–Civ. 6. A review of the record confirms that, as suggested by the bank, its pages have been stamped with addendum page numbers. This cannot be permitted; the record should not be tampered with in any fashion. Jones v. Little Rock Family Planning Servs., 58 Ark. App. 250, 949 S.W.2d 568 (1997). Moreover, there are inexplicable gaps in the pagination of appellants’ addendum. The Bells designated the entire record in their notice of appeal. However, there were at least two hearings conducted by the circuit court, only one of which was transcribed
Cite as 2012 Ark. App. 104 and contained in the record and abstract. If anything material to either party is omitted from the record by error or accident, we may direct that the omission or misstatement be corrected, and if necessary, that a supplemental record be certified and transmitted. Ark. R. App. P.–Civ. 6(e). Pro se appellants are held to the same standard as those represented by counsel. See Moon v. Holloway, 353 Ark. 520, 110 S.W.3d 250 (2003). The pro se appellant should be aware before he elects to proceed that pro se appellants receive no special consideration of their argument and are held to the same standard as a licensed attorney. Wade v. State, 288 Ark. 94, 702 S.W.2d 28 (1986). We remand the case to the circuit court for the record to be settled and supplemented with the complete transcripts of all hearings before the circuit court, all items properly filed of record, and the circuit clerk’s pagination only, within forty-five days. Within fifteen days of the filing of the supplemental record, the Bells shall file a substituted brief that includes a properly prepared abstract 1 of the complete trial transcripts and an addendum in compliance with Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(5) and (a)(8). After the filing of the substituted abstract, brief, and addendum, the bank shall have an opportunity to revise or supplement its brief within fifteen days. If the Bells fail to file a compliant brief within the prescribed time, the judgment appealed from may be affirmed for noncompliance with our rules. We encourage the Bells, prior to filing the substituted brief, to review the rules regarding the contents of the abstract and addendum to assure that the substituted brief complies with the rules and to ensure that 1 The original abstract was improperly prepared in a question-and-answer format in violation of Rule 4-2(a)(5)(B). 2
Cite as 2012 Ark. App. 104 no additional deficiencies are present. Finally, we reiterate the warning made in Jones: the court’s record on appeal is not to be disfigured, marked upon, or otherwise tampered with. 58 Ark. App. at 252, 949 S.W.2d at 568. Remanded to settle and correct the record and rebriefing ordered. MARTIN and BROWN, JJ., agree. Ann Shull Bell and Nelson Keith Bell, pro se appellants. Wright, Lindsey & Jennings LLP, by: Stephen R. Lancaster and Gary D. Marts, Jr., for appellee. 3
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.