DIVISION II

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

LARRY D. VAUGHT, JUDGE

CA02-232

October 23, 2002

CINDY H. COLE AN APPEAL FROM BENTON COUNTY

APPELLANT CIRCUIT COURT, DIVISION II

[E99-1769-2]

V.

HONORABLE DONALD R. HUFFMAN,

RANDALL E. COLE CIRCUIT JUDGE

APPELLEE

REBRIEFING ORDERED

This marital-property case involves the valuation and division of a substantial amount of property, including appellee's interest in a medical practice and related entities. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in determining the respective interests of the parties in the property. Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration and clarification of the decree, which resulted in an amendment to the decree. After the decree was amended, appellant filed a motion for new trial. In order to decide if the trial court properly valued the marital estate, we must be able to determine the specific claims and issues that were presented and resolved by the motions. We cannot do so, however, without reviewing the motions, which appellant failed to include in her addendum. Appellant also failed to include the notice of appeal, the amended notice of appeal, or the notice of cross-appeal in her addendum.

Rule 4-2(a)(8) of the Rules of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals provides that the addendum shall include copies of the "order, judgment, decree ... from which the appeal is taken, along with any other relevant pleadings, documents, or exhibits essential to an understanding of the case and the Court's jurisdiction on appeal.... such as the notice of appeal." The supreme court has noted that the notice of appeal must be abstracted in a civil case because it allows the appellate court to determine whether jurisdiction is proper. Stuart v. Arkansas Well Water Constr. Comm'n, 343 Ark. 369, 37 S.W.3d 573 (2001); Johnson v. State, 342 Ark. 357, 28 S.W.3d 286 (2000).

We find appellant's abstract and addendum to be deficient such that we cannot reach the merits of the case. Therefore, she has fifteen days from the date of this opinion to file a substituted abstract, addendum, and brief to conform to Rule 4-2(a)(5). See In re: Modification of the Abstracting System, 345 Ark. Appx. 626 (2001); Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3). Mere modifications of the original brief will not be accepted. Id. Upon filing of the substituted brief, appellee, if he so chooses, shall have fifteen days to revise or supplement his brief at appellant's expense. According to Rule 4-2(b)(3), if appellant fails to file a complying abstract, addendum, and brief within the prescribed time, the judgment or decree may be affirmed for noncompliance with the rule.

Rebriefing ordered.

Neal and Roaf, JJ., agree.