transmission from Mr. Smith’s office. Rule 5(c)(2) clearly requires evidence that the transmission was received; hence, evidence merely showing the date and time the papers were transmitted is insufficient under the rule. In Bhatti v. McCabe, 326 Ark. 176, 928 S.W.2d 340 (1996) (per curiam), this court held that the date and time on a motion for reconsideration shown by the chancery clerk’s facsimile machine could be used in determining whether the record was tendered in a timely manner. There, unlike here, the facsimile copy received by the chancery clerk had the date and time received printed upon it by the clerk’s facsimile machine, not merely the date and time when the transmission was sent. See also Tracor/MBA v. Artissue Flowers, 41 Ark. App. 186, 190, 850 S.W.2d 30, 33 (1993) (<HOLDING>) As there is no evidence that the facsimile
holding that to be timely the notice of a charging lien must be filed before the lawsuit has been reduced to judgment holding that transmitting legal documents by facsimile machine does not reheve the attorney of his duty to ensure that documents which must be timely filed have been timely received holding that a summons must have sufficient postage affixed to be timely filed recognizing that an appeal filed within 30 days of the entry of an order awarding attorney fees was timely filed as to the issue of attorney fees holding that pursuant to the best evidence rule trial testimony relying on documents was inadmissible without submission of such documents or an explanation as to why the documents were unavailable