Motor Cars of Nashville, Inc. v. Chronister
2014 Ark. App. 430
Ark. Ct. App.2014Background
- Motor Cars of Nashville, Inc. sued Chronister over a car dispute after Chronister bid on a vehicle via eBay.
- District Court set trial; Motor Cars sought and was denied a second continuance; a consent judgment was entered requiring Motor Cars to pay Chronister $9,620 plus fees.
- Motor Cars attempted to appeal to the Pope County Circuit Court by filing a certified copy of the district docket sheet but did not serve it on Chronister or his counsel with a signed-receipt mail.
- The circuit court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction due to noncompliance with District Court Rule 9(b).
- Rule 9(b) requires a certified docket sheet and service of that sheet on opposing counsel by mail requiring a signed receipt; service failure is jurisdictional and fatal to perfection of the appeal.
- The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s dismissal, holding strict compliance with Rule 9(b) is required and failure to serve the docket sheet voids the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 9(b) requires strict service of the docket sheet to perfect an appeal. | Motor Cars argues Rule 9(b) is not jurisdictionally fatal if service is not perfect. | Chronister contends Rule 9(b) must be strictly complied with, including service by signed-receipt mail. | Yes; strict compliance required; service failure defeats perfection. |
| Whether Howard v. Arkansas Cama Technology controls the interpretation of Rule 9(b) service requirements. | Motor Cars relies on Reporter’s Notes suggesting Rule 9(b) echoes Rule 3(f). | Howard mandates strict compliance with Rule 9(b). | Howard controls; strict compliance required. |
| Whether subsequent cases Circle D Contractors and Taylor weaken the strict-compliance standard for Rule 9(b). | Motor Cars claims these cases lessen strict compliance. | Circle D and Taylor preserve strict compliance for Rule 9(b). | No; these cases do not relax Rule 9(b); strict compliance remains. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Dawson, 365 S.W.3d 913 (Ark. 2010) (strict compliance required for Rule 9; substantial not enough)
- Howard v. Arkansas Cama Technology, 2012 Ark. App. 567 (Ark. App. 2012) (failure to serve docket sheet on opposing counsel fatal to appeal)
- Circle D Contractors, Inc. v. Bartlett, 2013 Ark. 131 (Ark. 2013) (Rule 9(c) as procedural; 9(b) remains jurisdictional)
- Taylor v. Biba, 2014 Ark. 22 (Ark. 2014) (definitive act is filing certified docket sheet; service not addressed on appeal)
- Duffy v. Little, 2011 Ark. 160 (Ark. 2011) (dismissal for lack of jurisdiction; strict compliance emphasized)
- Ingram v. City of Pine Bluff, 355 Ark. 129, 133 S.W.3d 382 (Ark. 2003) (strict compliance principles in procedural rules)
- J&M Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Hampton, 347 Ark. 126, 60 S.W.3d 481 (Ark. 2001) (strict compliance principles in Rule 9)
- Baldwin v. State, 74 Ark. App. 69, 45 S.W.3d 412 (Ark. App. 2001) (rejects substantial-compliance approach for Rule 9)