Gilder v. Cedar Ridge Farms LTD
This text of 2013 Ark. App. 544 (Gilder v. Cedar Ridge Farms LTD) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 544
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No. CV-12-951
Opinion Delivered October 2, 2013
DANNIE GILDER ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE SALINE APPELLANTS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. CV-2010-701] V. HONORABLE JOHN PLEGGE, JUDGE CEDAR RIDGE FARMS, LTD. APPELLEE REBRIEFING ORDERED
BRANDON J. HARRISON, Judge
In February 2011, the circuit court entered a default judgment against Dannie Gilder,
LaDonna Gilder, and Dustion Gilder, d/b/a Dusty Gilder Barrel Horses or DG Farms
(collectively “Gilder”) after finding that Cedar Ridge Farms, Ltd., had properly served Gilder
with a complaint and summons. A year later, Gilder asked the court to set aside the default
judgment, arguing, among other things, that the summons was defective. Cedar Ridge
opposed the effort. The court did not set aside the default judgment. Gilder appealed.
Before addressing Gilder’s arguments on appeal, we order that Gilder file a
supplemental addendum. Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(8)(A) (2012) requires that
Gilder’s addendum contain all documents in the record on appeal that are essential for us to
confirm jurisdiction, to understand the case, and to decide the issues on appeal. Gilder’s
current addendum does not satisfy the rule. For example, it does not include the complaint,
the default judgment, the motions to set aside the default judgment, or the responses to those Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 544
motions. Any affidavits of service in the appeal record should also be included.
Gilder has seven calendar days from this order’s date to file a compliant supplemental
addendum. See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(4). Gilder’s counsel should review the Rules of the
Arkansas Supreme Court, the record, and the current addendum to ensure no additional
deficiencies exist.
Rebriefing ordered.
WYNNE and BROWN, JJ., agree.
The Law Offices of Thomas Burns, P.A., by: Thomas Burns, for appellants.
Baxter Law Firm, by: Ray Baxter, for appellees.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2013 Ark. App. 544, 2013 WL 5509160, 2013 Ark. App. LEXIS 564, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilder-v-cedar-ridge-farms-ltd-arkctapp-2013.