ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
DIVISION IV

CA03-177

September 17, 2003

JOHN E. KIESLING, JR., CARROLL

CONE, and CAROLINE M. CONE AN APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON COUNTY

APPELLANTS CIRCUIT COURT

v. [CIV2002-505-1]

JEFFERY SMITH and HONORABLE BERLIN C. JONES,

SANDRA SMITH CIRCUIT JUDGE

APPELLEES

REBRIEFING ORDERED

John F. Stroud, Jr., Chief Judge

This appeal is from the Jefferson County Circuit Court's decree quieting title to property that appellees Jeffery Smith and Sandra Smith obtained at a tax sale. Appellants Carroll Cone, Sr., Caroline Cone, and John Kiesling, Jr., pro se, raise three points on appeal. We do not reach the merits of appellants' case because of their failure to comply with our abstract, brief, and addendum requirements.

The most egregious of the numerous problems with appellants' abstract, brief, and addendum are as follows: (1) the abstract of the transcript of the hearing on the motions to dismiss and to intervene is not in the first person, see Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(5); (2) the addendum consists mostly of pleadings that have been retyped, instead of photocopied, and some of the documents essential to an understanding of this appeal are missing, see Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(8); (3) the statement of the case contains argument along with an accusation that the circuit judge acted "secretly," and it is not sufficient to provide an understanding of this case, see Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(6); (4) the points addressed in the argument do not correspond to the list of points on appeal. See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(7).

Although failure to abstract materials essential to the understanding of an argument on appeal has in the past been considered a bar to consideration of the merits of the argument, this court must now allow rebriefing to cure deficiencies in the abstract or addendum. See Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs. v. Collier, 351 Ark. 380, 92 S.W.3d 683 (2002). Rule 4-2(b)(3) provides in part:

If the Court finds the abstract or Addendum to be deficient such that the Court cannot reach the merits of the case, or such as to cause an unreasonable or unjust delay in the disposition of the appeal, the Court will notify the appellant that he or she will be afforded an opportunity to cure any deficiencies, and has fifteen days within which to file a substituted abstract, Addendum, and brief, at his or her own expense, to conform to Rule 4-2(a)(5) and (8).

We therefore order appellants to provide a substituted abstract, addendum, and brief sufficient to provide this court with an understanding of all questions presented on appeal within fifteen days from the date of this opinion. Mere modifications of the original brief will not be accepted. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3). We hold pro se litigants to the same requirements to which we hold attorneys. Jewell v. Arkansas State Bd. of Dental Exam'rs, 324 Ark. 463, 921 S.W.2d 950 (1996). If appellants fail to file a complying abstract and addendum within the prescribed time, the judgment may be affirmed for noncompliance with the rule. City of Dover v. City of Russellville, 351 Ark. 557, 95 S.W.3d 808 (2003); Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3).

Rebriefing ordered.

Bird and Vaught, JJ., agree.