Smith v. Lovelace

2014 Ark. App. 187
CourtCourt of Appeals of Arkansas
DecidedMarch 19, 2014
DocketCV-13-452
StatusPublished

This text of 2014 Ark. App. 187 (Smith v. Lovelace) 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.

Bluebook
Smith v. Lovelace, 2014 Ark. App. 187 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 187

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CV-13-452

Opinion Delivered March 19, 2014 RHODIS SMITH APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, NINTH DIVISION [NO. PR-2009-49] V. HONORABLE MARY SPENCER McGOWAN, JUDGE

HERSCHEL LOVELACE and VENITA SUPPLEMENTATION OF THE LOVELACE ADDENDUM ORDERED APPELLEES

ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Chief Judge

Rhodis Smith appeals the Pulaski County Circuit Court’s February 4, 2013 order

denying his petition seeking to remove the appellees, Herschel and Venita Lovelace, as

guardians of his grandson (M.R., age 5) and to have himself appointed as guardian. On

appeal, he contends that the circuit court clearly erred by denying his petition. We order

supplementation of the addendum.

Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(8)(A)(i) (2013) requires that the addendum to

the appellant’s brief include the pleadings on which the circuit court decided each issue,

specifically identifying the complaint and answer. Also to be included are all motions,

responses, replies and exhibits. Id. A review of appellant’s brief reveals that appellant failed

to include several pleadings in the addendum; specifically, the motions to dismiss and for Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 187

summary judgment, the responses thereto, and supporting affidavits and statements filed by

both parties are not included. We order supplementation of the addendum pursuant to

Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(b)(4), giving appellant seven calendar days to provide the

additional materials from the record to the members of the appellate court. The pleadings

and materials listed herein are not to be taken as an exhaustive list of deficiencies; appellant

should carefully review the rules and ensure that no other deficiencies exist.

Supplementation of the addendum ordered.

WALMSLEY and WHITEAKER , JJ., agree.

Darrell F. Brown, Jr., for appellant.

No response.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2014 Ark. App. 187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-lovelace-arkctapp-2014.