Opinion
No. CA12-410
11-28-2012
LUKE SZABO APPELLANT v. LESLI RUTLAND WOMACK APPELLEE
Evans & Evans Law Firm, by. James E. Evans, Jr., Elizabeth Tonti, Legal Aid of Arkansas, for appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE BENTON
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
[NO. DR2008-1386-5]
HONORABLE XOLLIE DUNCAN,
JUDGE
REBRIEFING ORDERED
RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON , Judge
Appellant Luke Szabo appeals from the Benton County Circuit Court's order establishing the amount of child support owed by Szabo, granting attorney's fees to appellee Lesli Womack, and finding Szabo in contempt of court. Because Szabo failed to abstract the hearing testimony upon which the contempt finding was based, we order rebriefing.
The finding of contempt is a final, appealable order. Pinnacle Point Props., LLC v. Metro. Nat'l Bank, 2012 Ark. App. 268.
Szabo and Womack were divorced in September 2008, and Womack was awarded primary custody of their minor daughter. On December 29, 2010, the trial court set child support at $487 a month beginning November 1, 2010. Szabo was also ordered to pay to appellee attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $600. Szabo appealed, and we reversed and remanded for recalculation of child support and reconsideration of attorney's fees pursuant to Chrisco v. Sun Indus., Inc., 304 Ark. 227, 800 S.W.2d 717 (1990). See Szabo v. Womack, 2011 Ark. App. 664 (Szabo I).
On remand, the court recalculated child support in light of our ruling in Szabo I, supra, and again awarded attorney's fees after consideration of the Chrisco factors. The court also found Szabo in contempt of court for failing to apprise the court at a previous child-support hearing that he had received certain social security benefits on behalf of himself and his child.
On appeal, Szabo argues that the trial court erred in determining the amount of child support owed and in awarding attorney's fees without a more thorough analysis of the Chrisco factors. He further argues that, because he was never specifically asked at the previous hearing about the lump-sum social security payments he received, the trial court erred in finding him in contempt.
Szabo, however, has failed to abstract his testimony from the previous hearing—testimony at least partially relied upon by the trial court in its finding of contempt. A partial transcript of that testimony was included as an exhibit to Womack's petition for contempt and is included in the addendum to Szabo's brief. However, Rule 4-2(a)(8) of the Rules of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals states that, while the addendum must contain all motions concerning the order, judgment, or ruling challenged on appeal, if a transcript of a hearing, deposition, or testimony is an exhibit to a motion or related paper, then the material parts of the transcript shall be abstracted and not included in the addendum. Likewise, Rule 4-2(a)(5) of the Rules of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals states that an appellant "shall create an abstract of the material parts of all the transcripts (stenographically reported material) in the record." Additionally, that rule provides that "[a]ll material parts of all hearing transcripts, trial transcripts, and deposition transcripts must be abstracted, even if they are an exhibit to a motion or other paper." Ark. Sup. Ct. R.. 4-2(a)(5)(A) (2012). I nformation is material if it is essential for the appellate court to confirm its jurisdiction, to understand the case, and to decide the issues on appeal. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(5) (2012). Because Szabo has failed to comply with our rules concerning abstracting, we order him to file a substituted brief curing the deficiencies in the abstract within fifteen days from the date of entry of this order. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3) (2012). We further advise Szabo's counsel to examine our rules to ensure that no additional deficiencies are present.
Rebriefing ordered.
PITTMAN and MARTIN, JJ., agree.
Evans & Evans Law Firm, by. James E. Evans, Jr., for appellant.
Elizabeth Tonti, Legal Aid of Arkansas, for appellee.