Opinion
No. CA12-405
11-14-2012
JOANIE HARP APPELLANT v. SECURITY CREDIT SERVICES, LLC APPELLEE
Joanie Harp, pro se. Hosto & Buchan, PLLC, by: Travis A. Gray, for appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, SIXTH
DIVISION
[NO. 60CV-10-4838]
HONORABLE TIMOTHY DAVIS FOX,
JUDGE
REMANDED TO SUPPLEMENT
RECORD; REBRIEFING ORDERED
CLIFF HOOFMAN, Judge
Appellant Joanie Harp appeals from a judgment awarded to appellee Security Credit Services in the amount of $19,456.63, plus interest, as a result of appellant's unpaid credit card debt. On appeal, appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to exclude from evidence exhibits that were provided to her on the day prior to trial. We decline to address the merits at this time and instead order rebriefing. We also remand in order to supplement the record.
On August 16, 2010, appellee filed a complaint in Pulaski County Circuit Court, alleging that appellant owed an outstanding balance of $19,456.63, plus interest, on a credit card that had been provided to her by General Electric Credit Corporation (GECC). Appellee alleged that it was the assignee of this credit card account and prayed that it be awarded judgment in that amount. Appellant filed a response and sworn denial on August 30, 2010, and she also filed an answer to the complaint on June 29, 2011, in which she raised affirmative defenses such as lack of standing and privity, failure to allege a valid assignment and to name the real party in interest, failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, laches, statute of frauds, and accord and satisfaction.
Although it is not included in the record on appeal, appellant asserts that she propounded discovery requests to appellee in December 2010. On September 7, 2011, appellant then filed motions to strike certain responses by appellee to her discovery requests, alleging that the bill of sale, credit card statements, and the credit card's terms and conditions provided to her should be stricken from evidence because they were vague and improperly authenticated. These motions to strike are included in the record, and appellee has included them in its supplemental addendum. The trial court denied the motions to strike at a hearing held in September 2011.
The jury trial was held on January 5, 2012. Although appellant had previously represented herself in the action, on the day of trial, she was represented by counsel, who she had retained on November 23, 2011. Prior to the start of trial, appellant's counsel argued to the trial court that he had just received the day before an exhibit that appellee intended to use at trial. Counsel objected to the admission of these documents on the basis that appellant had previously propounded discovery, that the exhibit had not been provided to appellant, and that receiving these documents on the eve of trial was therefore inappropriate. The trial court treated the objection as a motion in limine and denied it, stating that there had been "a number of things that have apparently been fluid in this case up to the evening before the trial."
Subsequent to the trial, at which the only witness to testify was the corporate representative for appellee, the jury found for appellee and entered a verdict in the amount of $19,456.63. A judgment to this effect was entered by the trial court on January 20, 2012, and appellee was awarded a total of $19,684.37 in damages, including costs and interest. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal from this judgment.
On appeal, appellant argues that appellee's failure to disclose exhibits it intended to use at trial is a violation of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure and that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to exclude the exhibits. Pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 26(e) (2012), a party is under a duty to seasonably amend a prior discovery response if the party learns that the response is in some material respect incomplete or incorrect and if the additional or corrective information has not otherwise been made known to the other party during the discovery process or in writing. If a party fails to seasonably supplement his discovery responses as required under Ark. R. Civ. P. 26(e), and "another party suffers prejudice, then upon motion of the prejudiced party made before or at trial, the court may make any order which justice requires to protect the moving party, including but not limited to imposing any sanction allowed by subdivision (b)(2)(A)-(C) of this rule." Ark. R. Civ. P. 37(e) (2012).
Appellant contends that she properly served a set of interrogatories and requests for production of documents on appellee and that it failed to produce certain documentation in response to this request until the day before trial, which was improper and prejudicial. However, because appellant failed to designate in her notice of appeal that her motions for discovery be included in the record on appeal, we do not have before us her discovery requests, nor can we determine what was provided by appellee in response to these requests. We are thus unable to address the merits of her argument at this time.
Under Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 6(e) (2012) , if anything material to either party is omitted from the record by error or accident or is misstated therein, the appellate court on its own initiative may direct that the omission be corrected and that a supplemental record be certified and transmitted. We therefore remand to the circuit court so that a supplemental record may be filed containing these omitted discovery requests and responses within thirty days from the date of this opinion.
Further, appellant has failed to abstract any part of the trial other than her pretrial motion in limine; thus, she has not demonstrated prejudice from the alleged discovery violation because she has not shown that the challenged exhibit was in fact admitted into evidence at trial. Therefore, we also order rebriefing. Once the supplemental record is filed with this court, appellant will have fifteen days to file a revised abstract and addendum correcting these deficiencies and including the additional documents contained in the supplemental record. We also encourage appellant to review Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2 in its entirety to ensure that no additional deficiencies are present. Once appellant has filed her corrected brief, appellee may then file a substituted response brief within fifteen days, or it may choose to rely on its brief that was previously filed.
Remanded to supplement record; rebriefing ordered.
ROBBINS and WYNNE, JJ., agree.
Joanie Harp, pro se.
Hosto & Buchan, PLLC, by: Travis A. Gray, for appellee.