Office of Child Support Enforcement v. Anthony G. Brown
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No.
07-530
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT
ENFORCEMENT,
APPELLANT,
Opinion Delivered
June 14, 2007
MOTION FOR RULE ON CLERK
VS.
REMANDED.
ANTHONY G. BROWN,
APPELLEE,
PER CURIAM
Appellant Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), by and through its attorney,
Greg L. M itchell, has filed a motion for rule on clerk. The record, which consists of a
consolidated record for the four cases against appellee Anthony G. Brown, reflects that OCSE
timely filed its notice of appeals on December 4, 2006, making its record on appeal due on or
before March 5, 2007.1 On February 27, 2007, the circuit court entered an order in each of the
four cases extending the time for filing the transcript to “thirty (30) days from March 4,
2007[.]” Then, on March 30, 2007, the circuit court entered a second order of extension in
each of the four cases extending the time for filing the transcript until May 15, 2007. OCSE
tendered the record to this court on May 15, 2007. In its motion for rule on clerk, OCSE states
1
While OCSE states in its motion that the record was due on March 3, 2007, our
calculations result in a due date of March 4, 2007. However, because March 4 was a Sunday,
the time for filing the record would have been extended, pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 6(a)
(2007), until Monday, March 5, 2007.
that each motion for extension was served upon the appellee, without response, and that the
extensions of time were made in good faith and were done at no fault of its own. OCSE
further states that the appellee is not prejudiced by the delay in filing the appeal and requests
a motion for rule on clerk.
A review of the circuit court’s orders in the record before us reveals that the orders of
extension fail to comply with Ark. R. App. P.–Civ. 5(b) (2007). Rule 5(b)(1) provides:
(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 prescribed by subdivision (a) of this rule or a prior
extension order, 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;
(D) The appellant, in compliance with Rule 6(b), has timely ordered the
stenographically reported material from the court reporter and made any
financial arrangements required for its preparation; and
(E) An extension of time is necessary for the court reporter to include the
stenographically reported material in the record on appeal.
Ark. R. App. P.–Civ. 5(b)(1) (2007). 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., Studie v. Corbin, ___ Ark. ___, ___ S.W.3d ___
(Mar. 8, 2007) (per curiam); Cloverdale Neighborhood Ass’n v. Goss, 368 Ark. 675, ___
S.W.3d ___ (2007) (per curiam); Looney v. Bank of West Memphis, 368 Ark. 639, ___
-2-
07-530
S.W.3d ___ (2007) (per curiam). The orders of extension in this case make no reference to
each of the findings of the circuit court, which are required by the rule. Accordingly, we
remand the matter to the circuit court for compliance with Rule 5(b).
Remanded.
-3-
07-530
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.