KELLY V. FoRD
148 Cite as 374 Ark. 148 (2008) [374 Andre KELLY v. Deborah FORD 08-315 286 S.W3d 674 Supreme Court of Arkansas Opinion delivered September 4, 2008 MOTIONS — MOTION FOR RULE ON CLERK — DENIED WHERE, ON REMAND, TRIAL COURT FOUND THAT ARK. R. Avv. 5(b)(1)(C) WAS NOT COMPLIED WITH AT THE TIME THE ORIGINAL MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME WAS FILED AND GRANTED. — There must be strict compliance with the requirements of Rule 5(b); on remand, the trial court found that the requirements were not met because no hearing was held, and neither appellee nor her attorney was given an opportunity to be heard or even respond to the motion prior to the ' Further, we note that we have jurisdiction over this matter although the mandate in Alpharma I was issued on June 19, 2008. See Jones v. Jones, 327 Ark. 195, 938 S.W2d 228 (1997).
KELLY V. FORD
ARK.] Cite as 374 Ark. 148 (2008) 149 entry of the order granting the extension; accordingly, the motion was denied and the case dismissed. Motion for Rule on Clerk; denied. Appellant, pro se. No response. ER CURIAM. In a per curiam delivered on April 3, 2008, P this court remanded this case to the circuit court for proof of compliance with Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure—Civil 5(b)(1)(C). We asked the court to determine if the rule was complied with at the time a motion for extension of time to file the record was filed and granted by the trial court. See McGahey V. State, 372 Ark. 46, 269 S.W.3d 814 (2007) (per curiam). In its order on remand, the trial court finds that it did not, at the time the original motion for extension of time was filed and granted, comply with the requirements of Ark. R. App. P.—Civ. 5(b)(1)(C). No hearing was held, and neither Ms. Ford, nor her attorney, was given an opportunity to be heard or even respond to the motion prior to the entry of the order granting the extension. [1] We have made it clear that there must be strict compliance with the requirements of Rule 5(b). See Roy v. State, 367 Ark. 178, 238 S.W.3d 117 (2006) (per curiam); White V. State, 366 Ark. 295, 234 S.W.3d 882 (2006) (per curiam). Because the requirements were not met in this case, the motion for rule on clerk filed by the appellant is denied, and the case is dismissed.
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.