Scott v. Wolfe
2011 Ark. App. 438
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Wolfe obtained a default judgment against Scott in 2000 for $19,800 and $1,000 in attorney’s fees after attempting service by warning order under Rule 4(f)(1).
- Wolfe purchased goats from Scott in 1994; Scott promised but failed to provide registration papers and breeding certificates.
- Wolfe mailed the complaint and summons to Scott at her last known Malvern address; later mail to a non-existent number at a different address failed.
- A warning order was published in the Malvern Daily Record in June 2000; Wolfe asserted service was effected under Rule 4(f)(1).
- In 2010 Wolfe sought to revive the judgment; Scott moved to set aside, arguing lack of diligent inquiry and improper service, among other defenses.
- The trial court granted the scire facias petition and revived the judgment; Scott appealed, arguing the judgment was void ab initio due to defective service.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the default judgment void for improper service? | Wolfe argues service complied via warning order under 4(f)(1). | Scott contends Wolfe failed to make diligent inquiry and used improper addresses. | Yes; the judgment was void ab initio due to defective service. |
| Did Wolfe make a diligent inquiry into Scott's whereabouts? | Wolfe attempted service and publication in good faith under 4(f)(1). | Scott asserts Wolfe knew her whereabouts (Traskwood) and did not diligently locate her. | No; Wolfe did not conduct diligent inquiry. |
| Is constructive service via warning order appropriate for a money judgment when actual notice could be provided? | Warning order was used to compel appearance and defend the action. | Service under Rule 4(f)(1) should provide actual notice; warnings cannot validate void service for money judgments. | Constructive service did not validly secure jurisdiction; judgment void. |
| Do laches or estoppel defeat voidness of a void ab initio judgment? | Wolfe relies on laches/estoppel to sustain the judgment. | Scott argues these doctrines should not apply to void judgments. | They do not apply; void ab initio remains void. |
| What standard of review applies to void judgments in setting aside a default? | Abuse-of-discretion standard generally applies, except for void judgments. | Void-judgment issue is reviewed de novo. | De novo review applies to void-judgment issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nucor Corp. v. Kilman, 358 Ark. 107 (Ark. 2004) (void default judgments if service is invalid; lack of jurisdiction)
- Grand Slam Stores, LLC v. L & P Builders, Inc., 212 S.W.3d 6 (Ark. App. 2005) (judgments without proper service are void)
- Raymond v. Raymond, 343 Ark. 480 (2001) (laches/estoppel not available to validate void judgments)
- Lawson v. Edmondson, 302 Ark. 46 (1990) (void judgments and service requirements analysis)
- Wilson v. Beckett, 95 Ark. App. 300 (2006) (appellate review of default-judgment rulings)
- Smith v. Edwards, 279 Ark. 79 (1983) (burden to show diligent inquiry for Rule 4(f)(1))