ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, JUDGE

DIVISION IV

BENNY RAY RANDLES

APPELLANT

V.

DANNY BERRY ET UX.

APPELLEES

CA01-223

November 14, 2001

APPEAL FROM THE MADISON COUNTY CHANCERY COURT

[NO. E-99-201]

HON. JOHN M. LINDSAY,

CHANCELLOR

AFFIRMED

This is a quiet title action, the fourth in a series of cases appellant has brought against appellees in an ongoing boundary-line dispute. Appellees asserted res judicata as a defense to the current lawsuit. After a hearing, the chancellor found that appellant was bound by the results of previous litigation, and dismissed the case with prejudice for failure of the appellant to meet his burden of proof and for want of equity. From that decision, comes this appeal.

For reversal, appellant contends that the chancellor abused his discretion in refusing to amend the pleadings to conform to the proof, and erred in dismissing appellant's petition to quiet title. We affirm.

This case, being a boundary dispute, involved the introduction into evidence of a plethora of deeds, plats, surveys, and other such documents necessary to an understanding of

the issues presented. Although some of these documents are listed in appellant's abstract, none of the contents have been abstracted or included in the addendum.

Both of appellant's arguments for reversal stand or fall on the correctness of the chancellor's finding of res judicata. The chancellor found that the issues in the present case were barred by the judgment entered in a previous action between the parties or their privies, Donna Gabbard v. Danny Berry and Ivy Berry, Madison County Chancery Court No. E-93-90, decided September 27, 1993. Neither the contents of this order nor the pleadings and transcript of that proceeding, both of which were introduced into evidence, have been abstracted or included in the addendum.

An appellant's abstract must include the material parts of the pleadings, proceedings, facts, documents, and other matters in the record that are essential to an understanding of all questions presented to the appellate court for decision. Ark. R. Sup. Ct. 4-2(a)(6).

The deeds, plats, and surveys in the present case are crucial to an understanding of the issues presented. Appellant's failure to include them in the abstract is a gross violation of Rule 4-2(a)(6) that warrants affirmance. Fulkerson v.Calhoun, 58 Ark. App. 63, 946 S.W.2d 714 (1997).

Likewise, the judgment, pleadings, and transcript of the prior proceeding are essential to an understanding of the issues in the present case. When a judgment becomes final, it is protected by the common law principle of res judicata, and the findings and orders of thedecree cannot later be collaterally attacked, even if the judgment is erroneous. Murry v. Mason, 42 Ark. App. 48, 852 S.W.2d 830 (1993). Under the claim preclusion aspect of the doctrine of res judicata, a valid and final judgment rendered on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction bars another action by the plaintiff or his privies against the defendant or his privies on the same claim or cause of action. Res judicata applies when (1) the first suit resulted in a judgment on the merits; (2) the first suit was based upon proper jurisdiction; (3) the first suit was fully contested in good faith; (4) both suits involve the same claim or cause of action which was litigated or could have been litigated but was not; and (5) both suits involve the same parties or their privies. Daley v. City of Little Rock, 36 Ark. App. 80, 818 S.W.2d 259 (1991). Res judicata bars not only the relitigation of claims which were actually litigated in the first suit, but also those which could have been litigated. Id.

The test in determining whether res judicata applies is whether the matters presented in a subsequent suit were necessarily within the issues of the former suit and might have been litigated therein. Carmical v. City of Beebe, 316 Ark. 208, 871 S.W.2d 386 (1994). Therefore, before we can determine if res judicata applies to the present case, we must be able to determine the specific claims that were presented in the prior suit. Id. We cannot do so without the judgment and pleadings in the prior proceeding, and appellant's failure to include them in the abstract is also a gross violation of the abstracting requirements warranting affirmance. See id.; Mack & Cluck v. Cluck, 262 Ark. 12, 554 S.W.2d 325 (1977).

Affirmed.

Vaught and Neal, JJ., agree.