I am writing an appellant’s brief in the Searcy County Arkansas case Pietrczak v. Me, 65-CV-21-20. I will post some of the highlights, as I work. This is installment two, from the section “Points of Appeal and Principal Authorities”. (The format does not translate, so the numbering is different than in the appellant’s brief.)

1.  The Court dismissed the Appellant as an individual with prejudice on March 28, 2022 and failed to dismiss the unrepresented Common Defense Doctrine Defendant. In the Court’s judgement against the defaulting defendant, the Court specifically made adverse rulings against the appearing Appellant and seized her property rights without allowing her to defend herself. The Court created law of the case adverse to the appearing Appellant that harms her ability to prevail on her dismissed counterclaim when the order to dismiss it is reversed on appeal. The law of the case created is adverse to the appearing Appellant when she files a case for malicious prosecution. During the hearing of March 17, 2022 from which the adverse order arose, the appearing Appellant was restrained from making objections, cross examining the witness, presenting evidence and testifying. Arkansas has long recognized the common-defense doctrine, which provides that an answer that is timely filed by a co-defendant inures to the benefit of a defaulting co-defendant. *Sutter v. Payne, 337 Ark. 330, 989 S.W.2d 887 (1999)

• The Court tricked Appellant into making unilateral disclosures of the evidence she intended to use at trial, by having the Trial Court Administrator give Appellant specific instructions by telephone (and Zoom call) on how and when to file the exhibits before the August 4, 2021 hearing, knowing the Court intended to continue the trial. Appellee Plaintiff submitted no exhibits. This was a denial of due process.
• Ark. R. App. P. Civ. 26 to 37
• Defendant “Laura Lynn” was misnamed on the complaint. Appellee failed to correct the misnomer by motion for leave to amend despite the appearing Appellant’s incessant admonishments of her correct, legal name. Therefore, there should be no judgement, rulings or findings adverse to Laura Lynn Hammett.
• Ark. R. Civ. P. 4(b)
• Defendant “Rural Revival Living Trust” was misnamed on the complaint. Appellee failed to correct the misnomer despite the appearing Appellant’s incessant admonishments that a trust is not a proper party. Therefore, there can be no findings against Laura Lynn Hammett as Trustee of the Rural Revival Living Trust, the Common Defense Doctrine defendant of “Laura Lynn”.

• Ark. R. Civ. P. 4(b)
• Plaintiff “Micheal Pietrczak” was misnamed. The allegation in the Complaint is that the plaintiff is a person with power of attorney, Walter Pietrczak. Therefore, an award to Micheal Pietrczak is not appropriate.
• Matter of Hamilton Living Tr. Dated Sept. 22, 2003, 2019 Ark. App. 76, 571 S.W. 3d 53 (2019)
• Ark. R. Civ. P. 4(b)
• Walter Pietrczak lacked standing to bring the suit on Micheal Pietrczak’s behalf, because Micheal Pietrczak swore that he revoked the power of attorney before the suit was filed and specifically denied alleging all the facts alleged in the Complaint.
• McKibben v. Mullis, 79 Ark. App. 382, 90 S.W.3d 442 (2002)
• A.C.A. § 16-62-102

All kibbitzing is appreciated. Chime in on the comments if you know any caselaw that upholds or disagrees with my statements I made on my own behalf. (I am not an attorney, and my blog is not legal advice. This is a pro se document written on my own behalf.)