SEC Inc. v. Puckett

Rodney Puckett sued SEC, Inc. for failure to pay overtime wages and conversion of personal property.1 Following trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Puckett on both counts. SEC appeals, asserting that the trial court erred in denying its motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. For reasons that follow, we affirm in part and reverse in part.

1. Before addressing the merits of SEC’s appeal, we note that, in violation of Court of Appeals Rule 27 c 3, the appellant failed to support most of its enumerated errors with any citations to the record or transcript. Indeed, SEC’s brief includes only a single citation to the record. But for Puckett’s citations and the limited size of the record, we would not consider SEC’s assertions. Similarly, in violation of Court of Appeals Rule 27 a 1, SEC has failed to include any “statement of the method by which each enumeration of error was preserved for consideration.” Such statement is essential to show the Court that the arguments raised on appeal were, in fact, properly preserved for appellate review. Appellants should not expect the Court to cull the record to ensure that this has been done.2 By failing to cite to the portion of the record showing where it purportedly preserved the enumerated errors, SEC risked the Court deeming all its arguments abandoned.3