Cite as 2010 Ark. 488 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. 10-1139 Opinion Delivered December 9, 2010 SANDER WOOD MOTION FOR RULE ON CLERK; MOTION TO REMAND FOR LACK APPELLANT, OF A FINAL ORDER VS. MOTION FOR RULE ON CLERK JULAN H. WOOD REMANDED; MOTION TO REMAND FOR LACK OF A FINAL APPELLEE, ORDER DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. PER CURIAM In his motion for rule on clerk, Appellant Sander Wood states that the Decree of Divorce was entered on May 27, 2010, and that his timely notice of appeal was filed on June 28, 2010. On August 16, 2010, within the time allowed to lodge the record, appellant obtained and filed an order extending the time to file the record until November 1, 2010. The record was timely tendered but rejected by our clerk for lack of compliance with Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure–Criminal Rule 5 (b)(1), which provides: (b) Extension of Time. (1) If any party has designated stenographically reported material for inclusion in the record on appeal, the circuit court, by order entered before expiration of the period prescribed by subdivision (a) of this rule or a prior extension order, may extend the time for filing the record only if it makes the following findings: (A) The appellant has filed a motion explaining the reasons for the requested extension and served the motion on all counsel of record; (B) The time to file the record on appeal has not yet expired; (C) All parties have had the opportunity to be heard on the motion, either at a hearing or by responding in writing;
Cite as 2010 Ark. 488 (D) The appellant, in compliance with Rule 6(b), has timely ordered the stenographically reported material from the court reporter and made any financial arrangements required for its preparation; and (E) An extension of time is necessary for the court reporter to include the stenographically reported material in the record on appeal. We have stated that upon remand for compliance with Rule 5(b)(1), the circuit court shall determine whether the rule was complied with at the time the original motion for extension of time was filed and granted. Spurlock v. Riddle, 373 Ark. 38, 280 S.W.3d 18 (2008) (per curiam). Further, the circuit court should not permit the parties the opportunity to correct any deficiencies, but should make the findings required by the rule as if they were being made at the time of the original motion. Id. If the requirements were not met at the time of the initial motion, then the circuit court’s order should so reflect and be returned to this court. Id. Because the order of extension does not refer to each of the required findings and because we require strict compliance, we remand the matter to the circuit court for compliance with Rule 5(b)(1). Appellant has also filed a Motion to Remand for Lack of a Final Order, asserting that a final order was not entered below. This argument is based on the fact that a counterclaim was filed in response to the Complaint for Divorce, yet the decree appealed from is silent as to the counterclaim. Because we remand to the circuit court for Rule 5 compliance, we need not address the finality issue raised by appellant and dismiss his motion to remand without prejudice. It is so ordered. -2-
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.