Ladd v. PS Little Rock Inc.
2016 Ark. App. 506
Ark. Ct. App.2016Background
- Talma Ladd sued PS Little Rock, Inc. (Pro Source) and Nick Naylor for defective flooring and related claims; initial filings in 2013 were dismissed and she timely refiled in 2014.
- Ladd attempted service on Pro Source by certified mail to its registered agent, The Corporation Company, at the address listed with the Arkansas Secretary of State: 124 W. Capitol Ave., Suite 1400, Little Rock.
- Return receipt was signed “CT Corp” and dated June 17, 2014, but the post office receipt showed delivery to Suite 1900 (handwritten change from 1400) and the proof of service erroneously stated personal delivery.
- Pro Source moved to dismiss for defective service and lack of jurisdiction; the trial court dismissed Ladd’s complaint with prejudice because a prior dismissal had occurred and the 120‑day service window requirement was not met.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals reviewed the trial court’s factual findings for clear error and the legal question of dismissal de novo, focusing on compliance with Ark. R. Civ. P. 4(d) and (g).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service on Pro Source was valid under Ark. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(8) | Ladd: certified‑mail to registered agent at Secretary of State address with signed return receipt constituted valid service | Pro Source: addressing errors, unsigned/unstamped receipt, and improper proof of service made service defective | Court: Service was valid; return receipt signed by “CT Corp” satisfied rule; dismissal reversed |
| Whether clerical errors in proof of service (claim of personal delivery) invalidate service | Ladd: Rule 4(g) requires proof but failure or minor inaccuracies do not invalidate service if actual proof exists | Pro Source: reliance on inaccuracies to show defective process | Court: Inaccuracy in proof form did not void service where return receipt proved delivery |
| Whether wrong suite number on postal receipt defeats service | Ladd: Address used matched Secretary of State listing; Pro Source did not show it was incorrect or unauthorized | Pro Source: argued wrong suite (1400 vs. 1900) made service defective | Court: Secretary of State listing and delivery to agent (CT Corp) meant suite discrepancy did not defeat service |
| Whether motions to strike and for default were abandoned and ripe for appellate relief | Ladd: did not abandon these motions; they were unresolved below and not separate claims | Pro Source: argued abandonment in appeal and urged dismissal | Court: Motions were not abandoned but trial court made no rulings below; appellate court declined to rule and remanded for trial court to resolve |
Key Cases Cited
- Trusclair v. McGowan Working Partners, 306 S.W.3d 428 (Ark. 2009) (statutory and rule service requirements are strictly construed)
- Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Skender, 489 S.W.3d 176 (Ark. App. 2016) (standard of review for service-related factual findings and legal dismissals)
- Delta Oil Co. v. Catalani, 633 S.W.2d 1 (Ark. 1982) (registered office/agent requirements facilitate service of process)
- Advance Fiberglass, LLC v. Rovnaghi, 2011 Ark. 516 (Ark. 2011) (amendment permitting certified‑mail service on corporate registered agents and relaxing restricted-delivery requirements)