591 S.W.3d 831
Ark. Ct. App.2019Background
- Angela and John Jones married in 2012 and have one child, I.J.; after an August 13, 2017 incident in which Angela alleged John was drunk, aggressive, threatened them, and had prior abuse, Angela left with the child and moved to Alabama.
- In Alabama Angela obtained an ex parte protection order and filed for divorce there; John filed for divorce in Arkansas on October 24, 2017, seeking custody as primary caregiver.
- Angela was served with the Arkansas complaint but did not answer within thirty days; John obtained a default divorce decree on January 31, 2018 that awarded him custody.
- Angela (with counsel) moved under Ark. R. Civ. P. 55 to set aside the default decree, arguing (c)(1) excusable neglect (she relied on Alabama counsel/jurisdiction) and (c)(4) that the best interest of the child and domestic-abuse allegations justified relief.
- The circuit court denied the motion; the Arkansas Court of Appeals reversed only as to custody, holding the court abused its discretion in not setting aside the custody default under Rule 55(c)(4) and remanded for a best-interest custody hearing.
- A three-judge dissent would have affirmed, criticizing the majority for creating an exception to default-judgment law on the record and noting the Alabama protection proceedings were dismissed and abuse allegations were not developed at the Rule 55 hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether default judgment should be set aside for excusable neglect under Ark. R. Civ. P. 55(c)(1) | Angela: timely gave papers to Alabama counsel and reasonably relied on Alabama jurisdiction and counsel handling; that excusable neglect justifies relief | John: Angela was properly served and failed to timely answer; bound by attorney; no excusable neglect | Court of Appeals did not reverse on (c)(1); the majority relied instead on (c)(4) to vacate custody; trial court’s focus on tardy answer was not enough to deny all relief |
| Whether a custody default may be set aside under Ark. R. Civ. P. 55(c)(4) because a best-interest-of-the-child analysis and abuse allegations justify relief | Angela: default custody cannot stand without a best-interest hearing; domestic-abuse allegations constitute "other reason justifying relief" under (c)(4) | John: no controlling Arkansas authority; case was defaulted after proper service; offered no substantive refutation of abuse-based (c)(4) claim | Majority: circuit court abused discretion by failing to consider abuse allegations and best-interest concerns under (c)(4); reversed custody award and remanded for a best-interest hearing |
| Whether a blanket exception to default judgments in child-custody cases should be adopted | Angela urged adoption of Florida/Maryland-style rule requiring full hearing or barring default custody judgments | John and dissent: oppose creating a new blanket exception; this is policy for supreme court or legislature | Court of Appeals declined a blanket exception but held that, on these facts, (c)(4) relief was warranted due to best-interest/domestic-abuse concerns |
Key Cases Cited
- Nucor Corp. v. Kilman, 358 Ark. 107, 186 S.W.3d 720 (2004) (standards and abuse-of-discretion review for Rule 55 relief)
- B & F Eng’g, Inc. v. Cotroneo, 309 Ark. 175, 830 S.W.2d 835 (1992) (courts disfavor default judgments)
- Moore v. Taylor Sales, Inc., 59 Ark. App. 30, 953 S.W.2d 889 (1997) (Rule 55 amended to favor merits over technical defaults)
- Rogue v. Frederick, 272 Ark. 392, 614 S.W.2d 667 (1981) (best interest of the child is the paramount consideration in custody cases)
- Adams v. Moody, 324 S.W.3d 348 (Ark. App. 2009) (mere, unsupported allegation of a meritorious defense does not automatically warrant setting aside a default)
- Gulley v. State, 423 S.W.3d 569 (Ark. 2012) (explains high threshold for finding abuse of discretion)