ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

JOHN E. JENNINGS, JUDGE

DIVISION I

CA 00-738

May 2, 2001

GLADYS F. BRYANT APPEAL FROM FAULKNER COUNTY

APPELLANT CHANCERY COURT

VS.

HONORABLE KAREN R. BAKER,

FERNE PETTINGILL CHANCERY JUDGE

APPELLEE AFFIRMED

Gladys Bryant filed a petition for an injunction and for a decree quieting title to a certain 2.25 acre tract of land owned by her in Faulkner County, Arkansas. Her neighbor to the west, Ferne Pettingill, was named as the defendant and filed a general denial. Each party hired a surveyor and both surveyors, James Ross and Jerry Earnhart, testified at trial. The issue before the chancel lor was which survey was correct, and the chancellor found that the Ross survey was incorrect.

The sole contention on appeal is that the chancellor erred in holding that a nail in asphalt was a monument to which the rangeline must yield. The appellee contended in her brief that the chancellor made no such finding. In her reply brief appellant concedes that this is so. Under these circumstances, we cannot reverse on the point raised by the appellant.

Appellant argues for the first time in her reply brief that it was error for the trial court not to make specific findings of fact when such findings had been timely requested under Rule 52(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. See BPS, Inc. v. Richardson, 341 Ark. 834, 20 S.W.3d 403 (2000).

In Jordan v. State, 323 Ark. 628, 917 S.W.2d 164 (1996), the court said:

In his reply brief, appellant admits that he was not convicted of attempted capital murder and attempts to change his argument to one alleging error for failure to grant a directed verdict on the charge of first-degree murder. The attempt to change arguments is ineffec tive. We have long held that an argument cannot be raised for the first in the brief reply. Partin v. Barr, 320 Ark. 37, 894 S.W.2d 906 (1995).

See also Stephens v. State, 342 Ark. 151, 28 S.W.3d 260 (2000); Commonwealth Public Serv. Co. v. Lindsay, 139 Ark. 283, 214 S.W.2d 9 (1919). We therefore do not reach the merits of appel lant's Rule 52(a) argument.

For the reasons stated the decision of the trial court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Bird, J., agrees; Griffen, J., concurs.

Wendell L. Griffen, Judge, concurring. I agree with the majority that the point on appeal challenged by appellant is baseless. Furthermore, although appellant moved for specific findings before the chancellor rendered her decision, appellant failed to raise this point in her opening brief. Instead, she attempted to do so in her reply brief.

Rule 4-2 of our Rules of the Supreme Court provides that an appellant's brief must contain a list and separate numbering of points relied upon for reversal. When an appellant omits an argument from her original brief, the argument is considered abandoned, and she may not later raise the argument for the first time in her reply brief. See Jordan v. State, 323 Ark. 628, 917 S.W.2d 164 (1996). See also Camp v. State, 66 Ark. App. 134 (1999). Because appellant in the instant case violated this well-settled procedural rule by arguing for the first time in her reply brief that the trial court failed to make specific findings, I am unable to remand for re-briefing. Therefore, I concur.