Evins v. Carvin, 2013 Ark. App. 185

Evins borrowed $142,000 from Carvin in 1997 to buy property; no note or mortgage was filed due to unsettled loan terms.
January 16, 2002 settlement acknowledged Evins’s debt and required monthly payments in exchange for Carvin withholding litigation.
June 19, 2007 Carvin sued to enforce the settlement; complaint was dismissed without prejudice in 2008 for lack of prosecution.
August 25, 2009 Carvin filed a second complaint restating claims; it was dismissed October 4, 2010 for failure to prosecute and/or comply with orders.
April 12, 2011 Carvin filed a third complaint; Evins moved to dismiss, which the trial court denied; trial occurred December 6, 2011.
December 14, 2011 judgment found Evins breached the settlement, awarded Carvin $166,281.31, and dismissed Evins’s counterclaim; Evins appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether third complaint is barred under Rule 41(b).	Evins argues second dismissal operated as adjudication on the merits, barring the third.	Carvin contends dismissals were not proper Rule 41(b) adjudications and third suit is permissible.	Second dismissal operated as adjudication on the merits; third complaint barred.
Whether Evins’s appeal is jurisdictionally proper and preserved.	Evins contends notice of appeal substantially complied and preserved issues.	Carvin argues notice/designation defects invalidate appeal, and some arguments were not preserved.	Appeal properly designated the final judgment and preservation was adequate.

Jonesboro Healthcare Center, LLC v. Eaton-Moery Environmental Services, Inc., 385 S.W.3d 797 (2011 Ark.) (Rule 41(b) dismissal review de novo when construing court rule)
Watson v. Connors, 270 S.W.3d 826 (2008) (lack of notice under Rule 41(b) not void where plaintiff showed no interest)
City of Little Rock v. McGeorge Contracting Co., Inc., 377 S.W.3d 523 (2010 Ark. App.) (lack of notice under Rule 41(b) not void for second complaint)