Earls v. Harvest Credit Management VI-B, LLC
2015 Ark. 175
| Ark. | 2015Background
- Harvest Credit Management sued Linda and Tony Earls on a charged balance and served a summons stating response times: 20 days for in-state defendants, 30 days for nonresidents or incarcerated persons.
- Arkansas Rule 12(a) at the time actually gave incarcerated defendants 60 days to respond; the Earls were not incarcerated.
- The Earls did not answer; circuit court entered default judgment for Harvest.
- Years later Linda moved to set aside the default judgment, arguing the summons was facially defective for misstating the response time for incarcerated defendants. The circuit court denied relief; the court of appeals reversed.
- The Arkansas Supreme Court granted review and considered whether an error in a summons that does not apply to the served defendant(s) renders service defective under Rule 4(b) and Rule 12(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Earls/Linda) | Defendant's Argument (Harvest) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a summons that misstates the response time for a class of defendants (incarcerated persons) — when that class does not include the served defendant(s) — is defective | The summons was defective on its face because it misstated response times required by Rule 12(a); facial defect voids default judgment | Rule 4 requires only that the summons state the time within which the actual defendant must respond; superfluous or inapplicable errors do not void service (substantial compliance) | Court held the summons was defective: response times for each category must be correct; strict compliance required; reversed default judgment |
| Whether Rule 4(b) is applied strictly or by substantial-compliance standard | Strict compliance required; incorrect form language invalidates process | Substantial compliance should govern; de minimis or inapplicable mistakes should not defeat jurisdiction | Court reaffirmed strict-compliance standard for Rule 4(b) and rejected substantial-compliance argument |
| Whether actual knowledge of the lawsuit cures a defective summons | Knowledge does not cure defective process; defective summons still voids jurisdiction | Knowledge is insufficient to validate defective process; argued nonetheless that error was immaterial | Court reiterated precedent: actual knowledge does not validate defective process and does not cure noncompliance with Rule 4(b) |
Key Cases Cited
- Patsy Simmons Ltd. P’ship v. Finch, 370 S.W.3d 257 (Ark. 2010) (summons providing incorrect answer period deprived court of jurisdiction)
- Trusclair v. McGowan Working Partners, 306 S.W.3d 428 (Ark. 2009) (strict compliance required; incorrect days to answer rendered summons defective)
- Nucor Corp. v. Kilman, 186 S.W.3d 720 (Ark. 2004) (refused literal application of Rule 4 where misidentification of parties did not mislead the defendant actually served)