Melissa Bray v. Devin Bray

2019 Ark. App. 422

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: September 25, 2019
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2019 Ark. App. 422 Digitally signed by Elizabeth ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS Perry Date: 2022.07.26 10:42:52 DIVISION I -05'00' No. CV-19-273 Adobe Acrobat version: 2022.001.20169 Opinion Delivered: September 25, 2019

MELISSA BRAY (NOW BARNES)

APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE SALINE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 63DR-14-167]

DEVIN BRAY HONORABLE BARBARA WEBB, JUDGE APPELLEE REMANDED TO SETTLE AND SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD; SUPPLEMENTAL ADDENDUM ORDERED

WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge

Appellant Melissa Bray (now Barnes) appeals the Saline County Circuit Court’s

November 30, 2018 order modifying her visitation with her son, R.B. The court found

that there had been a material change in circumstances to warrant the change in appellant’s

visitation schedule and that the modification was in the child’s best interest. Appellant argues

that the court erred by not granting her custody of R.B. and that the modification was in

error. We remand this case to settle and supplement the record. We also order appellant

to supplement her addendum.

The parties were married on April 2, 2011. During their marriage, one child, R.B.,

was born. The parties were divorced by a decree entered on May 1, 2013. According to the decree, the parties were to have joint custody of R.B., with appellee serving as the

primary custodian. Appellant was granted weekend custody of R.B., from Friday to

Monday morning of each week. Appellant filed a verified motion to change custody on

May 16, 2018, alleging that there was a substantial change in circumstances. According to

the motion, appellee was the custodial parent “as of the [o]rder filed October 17, 2017

subject to [appellant’s] physical custody three weekends per month.” Although appellant

states that such an order exists, it is not in the record. Additionally, appellant’s statement of

the case mentions several motions for change of custody as well as court orders addressing

those motions; however, they are also not contained in the record before us. If anything

material to either party is omitted from the record, by error or by accident, we may direct

that the omission or misstatement be corrected and, if necessary, that a supplemental record

be certified and transmitted. 1 Therefore, we remand to the trial court to settle and

supplement the record with all motions for change in custody, responses, and subsequent

court orders addressing the motions filed by either party following their divorce.

Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(8) requires the addendum to include true and

legible copies of the nontranscript items on appeal that are essential for the appellate court

to confirm its jurisdiction, to understand the case, and to decide the issues on appeal. Here,

appellee filed a response to appellant’s change-of-custody motion on June 15, 2018;

however, it is not in the addendum. It will need to be placed in the supplemental

addendum. Also, once the record is settled and supplemented, those items will need to be

1 Ark. R. App. P.–Civ. 6(e) (2018); Jenkins v. APS Ins., LLC, 2012 Ark. App. 368, at 6.

2 placed in the addendum as they are essential for us to decide the issues on appeal and to

confirm our jurisdiction.

We remand to the trial court to settle and supplement the record within thirty days.

We order appellant to file a supplemental addendum within seven days from the date the

supplemental record is filed. 2

Remanded to settle and supplement the record; supplemental addendum ordered.

KLAPPENBACH and HIXSON, JJ., agree.

Kristin Riggan, for appellant.

Everett O. Martindale, for appellee.

2 See Taper v. City of Forrest City, 2017 Ark. App. 470.