Cloverdale Neighborhood Association and Troy Laha v. Herbert Goss and Elsie Goss
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. 07-62
CLOVERDALE NEIGHB OR HOOD
ASSOCIATION AND TROY LAHA,
APPELLANTS,
Opinion Delivered February 8, 2007
MOTION FOR RULE ON THE CLERK
TO FILE RECORD.
VS.
HERBERT GOSS AND ELSIE GOSS,
APPELLEES,
REMANDED.
PER CURIAM
Appellants, Cloverdale Neighborhood Association and Troy Laha, by and through their
attorney, Mark Riable, have filed a motion for rule on clerk. The record reflects that appellants
timely filed their notice of appeal on July 31, 2006, making their record on appeal due on or before
October 28, 2006. On October 18, 2006, the Pulaski County Circuit Court entered an order
extending the time for filing the transcript to January 16, 2007. When appellants attempted to tender
the record on January 12, 2007, the clerk of this court refused to accept it because the motion for
extension of time for filing did not comply with the requirements of Ark. R. App. P. – Civ. 5(b).
Appellant subsequently filed the present motion.
Rule 5(b)(1)(C) states in part:
(b) Extension of time.
(1) If any party has designated stenographically reported material for inclusion in the record
on appeal, the circuit court, by order entered before expiration of the period ... may extend
the time for filing the record only if it makes the following findings:
(A) The appellant has filed a motion explaining the reasons for the requested extension and
served the motion on all counsel of record;
(B) The time to file the record on appeal has not yet expired;
(C) All parties have had the opportunity to be heard on the motion, either at a hearing or by
responding in writing[.]
Id.
This court has made it very clear that we expect strict compliance with the requirements of
Rule 5(b), and that we do not view the granting of an extension as a mere formality. See, e.g., Clark
v. Tobias, ___ Ark. ___ , S.W.2d ___ (Jan. 25, 2007) (per curiam); Davis v. State, ___ Ark. ___, ___
S.W.3d ___ (Jan. 4, 2007) (per curiam); Woods v. Tapper, ___ Ark. ___ , ___ S.W.3d ___ (Sept.
14, 2006) (per curiam). The order of extension in this case makes no reference to the findings of the
circuit court required under Rule 5(b)(1)(C). Accordingly, we remand this matter to the trial court
for compliance with Rule 5(b)(1)(C).
Remanded.
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
