Eric J. Toran v. Deidra Williams

2025 Ark. App. 199

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: April 2, 2025
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2025 Ark. App. 199 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. CV-23-744

Opinion Delivered April 2, 2025

ERIC J. TORAN APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN COUNTY APPELLANT CIRCUIT COURT, FORT SMITH DISTRICT [NO. 66FCV-22-892] V. HONORABLE DIANNA HEWITT LADD, DEIDRA WILLIAMS JUDGE APPELLEE AFFIRMED

WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge

In this one-brief appeal, appellant Eric Toran asserts three points of error challenging the

circuit court’s order in favor of appellee Deidra Williams in a breach-of-contract action: (1) Toran

was not properly notified of proceedings; thus, he did not have the opportunity to defend himself;

(2) Williams knowingly and willfully falsified material evidence and committed perjury; and (3)

judgment in favor of Williams was the result of judicial bias. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm.

The record and brief presented to this court prohibits appellate review of the merits of the

issues challenged on appeal. This appeal was brought pro se, and Toran failed to cite relevant

authority in support of his arguments. No citation whatsoever is found within the argument section

of Toran’s brief. Instead of applying relevant legal authority to the facts of the case and undertaking

a proper legal analysis, Toran’s argument is limited to a regurgitation of facts and conclusory

statements, none of which are supported by applicable law. It has been repeatedly held that the appellate court will not consider arguments unsupported by convincing argument or sufficient

citation to legal authority.1 This alone is sufficient reason not to address Toran’s points of appeal. 2

In addition, in each of his points of appeal, Toran references testimony presented at the

hearing before the circuit court, yet no transcript from the hearing is contained in the record. As to

point one, Toran asserts that, “[d]uring trial, realizing the clerk had not sent out any proceedings or

letters to [Toran], other than the January 10 Order granting [Toran’s] extension and notification of

new trial date (June 24, 2023) the judge stated that [Toran] should have used Court Connect to know

the case proceedings.” He further indicates that Williams’s counsel stated during the hearing that a

copy of the hearing notification was sent to Toran. Toran also contends that Williams committed

perjury when she repeatedly falsely testified regarding missed payments, past-due amounts resulting

in a breach of contract, and a third agreement or “mutual understanding” with Toran. As for his last

point on judicial bias, Toran directs the court’s attention to evidence elicited in testimony that the

trial judge “discounted” and ignored. Despite his extensive reliance on testimony presented at the

hearing, Toran did not provide a transcript of the hearing. 3

1 Omni Holding & Dev. Corp. v. 3D.S.A., 356 Ark. 440, 156 S.W.3d 228 (2004). 2 Id.

Toran’s conventional record pleading with filing fee was accepted in error, and briefing 3

commenced. Once it was discovered that Toran’s record was lodged without the transcript, he was informed that he could supplement the record upon motion to bring up the transcript. He failed to do so.

2 Issues outside the record will not be considered on appeal. 4 It is the appellant’s burden to

produce a record sufficient to demonstrate error, and when the appellant fails to meet this burden,

we have no choice but to affirm the circuit court’s ruling.5

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

and must follow the rules of appellate procedure.6 Toran has not developed his arguments, cited

relevant authority, or brought forth a sufficient record for our review. Accordingly, Toran has failed

to demonstrate error.

Affirmed.

KLAPPENBACH, C.J., and THYER, J., agree.

Eric J. Toran, pro se appellant.

One brief only.

4 Warnock v. Warnock, 336 Ark. 506, 988 S.W.2d 7 (1999). 5 Dodge v. Lee, 352 Ark. 235, 100 S.W.3d 707 (2003). 6 Wade v. State, 288 Ark. 94, 702 S.W.2d 28 (1986).