Lead Opinion
| tAppellant Linda J. Earls (“Linda”)
Lindа and Tony L. Earls (“the Earlses”) received a Chase credit card, and Harvest is |2the assignee of the credit-card account. The Earlses made numerous charges on the card, leaving an outstanding balance of $4678.21. When the Earlses’ account remained past due, Harvest placed demands for payment, but the account went unpaid. On August 30, 2006, Harvest filed a complaint seeking a judgment against the Earlses in the amount of $4678.21, prejudgment interest of $2448.56, and attorney’s fees. On November 14, 2006, the Earlses were served with process. Harvest’s summons, which accompanied the complaint, stated that the answer must be filed, “within (20) TWENTY DAYS from the day you were served this summons; OR THIRTY (30) days if you are a nonresident of this state or a person incarcerated in any jail, penitentiary, or other correctional facility in this state” (emphasis added). According to Arkansаs Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a) in effect at the time filed, the summons correctly stated that an in-state defendant had twenty days to answer and that an out-of-state defendant had thirty days to answer, but the summons incorrectly stated that an incarcerated defendant had thirty days, instead of sixty days, to file an answer. The Earlses were not incarcerated. The Earlses did not answer Harvest’s complaint. On March 13, 2007, the circuit court entered a default judgment in favor of Harvest in the amount of $4678.21, prejudgment interest of $2980.73, attorney’s fees of $500, and court fees of $240.
On December 14, 2012, Linda filed a motion to set aside the default judgment, arguing that Harvest’s summons was defective on its face and did not strictly comply with Rule 4 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure because of the incorrect response time related to incarcerated defendants. She alsо asserted that the default judgment was void and unenforceable. In support of her position, Linda relied on an unreported federal district court ^decision that held that the summons, which was identical to the one in the 'present case, was defective. See Charkoma Res., LLC v. JB Energy Explorations, LLC, No. 09-02118,
On May 23, 2014, Harvest filed a petition for review. In its petition, Harvest argued that the court of appeals’ holding conflicted with the plain language of Rule 4, which, Harvest claimed, does not expressly require a summons to list the correct response time for every potential defendant. Harvest maintained that Rulе 4 requires only that a summons state the time within which the actual defendant is required to respond. Citibank, N.A. and Unifund OCR Partners filed amicus curiae briefs in support of Harvest’s argument. This court accepted Harvest’s petition for review. When we grant a petition for review, we consider the appeal as though it had been originally filed in this court. Bohannon v. Robinson,
On appeal, Linda argues that the circuit court erred in entering a default judgment and |4in refusing to set aside the default judgment because Harvest’s summons did not strictly comply with Rule 4. Specifically, Linda asserts that the summons was defective because it listed “the defendant,” as set forth in the language of Rule 4(b), when there were actually two defendants; that each one could have chosen a different response time listed in the summons; and that the response time of incarcerated defendants was in error.
Harvest responds that the incorrect information on the summons was not applicable to the Earlses. In support of its position, Harvest cites Talley v. Asset Acceptance, LLC,
The issue on appeal is whether an error, which does not apply to the actual defendant, or defendants in this case, renders the summons defective. Our standard of review for an order denying a motion to set aside default judgment depends on the grounds upon which the appellant claims the default judgment should be set aside. Steward v. Kuettel,
Rule 4(b) governs the form of summonses and provides as follows:
(b) Form. The summons shall be styled in the name of the court and shall be dated and signed by the clerk; be under the seal of the court; contain the names of the parties; be directed to the defendant; státe the name and address of the plaintiffs attorney, if any, otherwise the address of the plaintiff; and the time within which these rules require the defendant to appear, file a pleading, and defend and shall notify him that in case of his failure to do so, judgment by default may be entered against him for the relief demanded in the complaint.
Ark. R. Civ. P. 4(b) (2014) (emphasis added). This court adopted an “Official Form of Summons,” on May 24, 2001, and it became effective on July 1, 2001. See In re Implementation of Amend. 80: Amendments to Rules of Civ. P., 345 Ark. App’x 606 (2001) (per curiam) (mandating that specific language appear in a summons regarding the defending parties’ time for filing a responsive pleading).
The law in Arkansas is well settled that service of valid process is necessary to give a court jurisdiction over a defendant. Patsy Simmons Ltd. P’ship v. Finch,
Our case law is well settled that statutory service requirements, being in derogation of common-law rights, must be strictly construed and compliance with them must be exact. This court has held that the same reasoning applies to service requirements imposed by court rules. More particularly, the technical requirements of a summons set out in Ark. R. Civ. P. 4(b) must be construed strictly and compliance with those requirements must be exact. Actual knowledge of a proceeding does not validate defective process. The reason for this rule is that service of valid process is necessary to give a court jurisdiction over a defendant.
[fiWe have made it clear in a long line of cases that compliance with Rule 4(b) must be exact. The bright line standard of strict compliance permits cer- . tainty in the law; whereas, a substantial compliance standard would lead to ■ an ad hoc analysis in each case in order to determine whether the due-process requirements of the Arkansas and U.S. Constitutions have been met.
Trusclair v. McGowan Working Partners,
With this precedent in mind, we turn to the present case. Here, Harvest’s summons stated in pertinent part that the answer
must be filed within (20) TWENTY DAYS from the day you were served this summons; OR THIRTY (30) days if you are a non-resident of this state or a person incarcerated in any jail, penitentiary,or other correctional facility in this state.
As previously noted, Harvest’s summons incorrectly stated that an incarcerated defendant had thirty days, instead of sixty days, to file an answer. See Ark. R. Civ. P. 12(a).
Here, the circuit court stated in its order that service upon the Earlsеs was proper. However, the language of Rule 4(b) requiring that the summons be directed to “the defendant,” or in this case, the Earlses, must be read in conjunction with Rule 12(a), which |7provides for varying response times for in-state, out-of-state, and incarcerated defendants. Given that Rule 4 and Rule 12 govern summonses and the response times therein, we cannot ignore our case law that states that a summons must comply exaсtly and not substantially with the requirements of Rule 4(b).
Because Harvest’s summons contained an incorrect response time, it failed to meet the requirements of Rule 4(b) and Rule 12(a) by incorporation. We hold that Harvest’s summons falls short of strict compliance, as rеquired by Rule 4(b). Accordingly, we reverse the circuit court’s grant of default judgment in favor of Harvest and its denial of Linda’s motion to set aside default judgment on the basis that service upon the Earlses was proper.
Reversed and remanded; court of appeals opinion vacated.
Notes
. The circuit court granted default judgment in favor of Harvest against Linda J. Earls and Tony L. Earls. Linda J. Earls filed the motion to set aside the default judgment. Linda J. Earls filed the notice of appeal, appeals the circuit court's default judgment, and its order denying the motion to set aside the default judgment. Thus, we treat Linda as the appellant in this case.
. In Harvest’s argument, it refers to the appellant as the Earls.
. For this reason. Harvest’s reliance on Nucor,
Concurrence Opinion
concurring.
[J write separately because I have long believed that the best aрplication of Rule 4 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure should be substantial compliance. Mechanical application of Rule 4, and the attending jurisprudence, have yielded patently unjust results, and I have so stated. See Reichardt v. Creasey,
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
I wholeheartedly agree with the majority that we require strict compliance with Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 4. Therefore, I must dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the summons at issue in the present case was 1pdefective because the majority has failed to adhere to the language of Rule 4.
Neither rules of construction nor rules of interpretation may be used to defeat the clear and certain meaning of a rule provision. Solis v. State,
Rule 4, as it appeared when Harvest filed its complaint, requires that the summons include “the times within which these rules require the defendant to appear, file a pleading, and defend and shall notify him that in case of his failure to do so, judgment by default may be entered against him for the relief demanded in the complaint.” Ark. R. Civ. P. 4(b) (2007); see also In Re Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure, 366 Ark. App’x 644 (2006) (per cu-riam) (adopting amendments to Rule 4 effective May 25, 2006). The parties do not dispute that, at the time the summons was issued in this case, the rule granted an incarcerated defendant sixty days, rather than the thirty days stated in Harvest’s summons, to file an answer. The parties also do not dispute that the Earls were not incarcerated at the time the summons was served. This court has not addressed the precise issue in this case: whether a misstated response time that does not apply to the defendant served renders a summons defective.
Resolution of this first-impression issue requires this court to examine Rule 4 and our рrior cases relating to the content of a valid service of summons. In Patsy Simmons Ltd. Partnership v. Finch, this court held that a summons stating that an instate defendant had thirty | indays, rather than twenty days, was deficient and deprived the circuit court of jurisdiction.
In the present case, Harvest contends that its summons was not deficient becausе the plain language of Rule 4 does not require a summons to list the correct response time for every class of defendant, but requires only that a summons state the time within which the defendant must respond.
Rule 4 states that the summons “shall ... contain ... the time within which these rules ^require the defendant to file a pleading, and defend ...” Ark. R. Civ. P. 4(b) (emphasis added). In contrast to Rule 4(b)’s use of the article “the,” Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 12, which provides the time for filing an answer to a complaint, states, “A defendant shall file his or her answer ...” Ark. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1) (emphasis added). While the majority affirms that these two rules must be read “in conjunction,” the majority fails to acknowledge the textual difference between the two. The two rules use two different articles, “the” versus “a,” in referring to defendants. In plain English, “the” is a definite article that points to a definite object that (1) is so well understood that it does not need description; (2) is a thing that is about to be described; ór (3) is important. The Chicago Manual of Style R. 5.69 (16th ed.2010). In contrast, “a” is an indefinite article used to refer to nonspecific objects, things, or persons that are not distinguished from the other members of a class. The Chicago Manual of Style R. 5.70 (16th ed.2010). Accordingly, a strict аpplication of Rule 4 requires that the summons correctly state the response time for the specific defendant served, whereas Rule 12, sets out the response times for all classes of defendants.
| ^Moreover, this interpretation reconciles Trusclair, Patsy Simmons, and Nucor. In both Trusclair and Patsy Simmons, the defect related to the specific defendants served. In Nucor, however, the defect did not relate to the specific defendant served. Instead, the defect involved the misidentification of another party. Read together, these three cases implicitly recognize that the requirements of Rule 4 apply to the specific defendant served, and not. to any defendant within the entire class of possible defendants.
Moreover, I disagree with the majority’s assertion that Harvest’s reliance on Nucor is misplaced because the summons at issue in Nucor “did riot contain an erroneous statement of any of the provisions in Rule 4(b) or 12(a).” As this court recognized in Nucor, Rule 4(b) requires that the summons “contain the names of the parties.”
In short, the use of the definite article “the” before defendant means that the requirements of Rule 4 apply to the specific defendant identified by the summons аnd errors that do not pertain to that defendant do not render the summons defective. The majority errs by conflating Rules 4(b) and Rule 12 and'requiring that a summons must state the correct resporise time for all categories of defendants listed, regardless of whether the response time for the defendant summoned is correctly stated. Instead, the majority should confine its analysis to reviewing whether the summons properly states the response time for the defendant served, which is all that is required under our Rules and by our precedents. Therefore, I. dissent.
GOODSON, J. joins in this dissent.
. In varying contexts, other jurisdictions acknowledge that use of a- definite rather than indefinite article is an indication of meaning. Dep’t of Ecology v. City of Spokane Valley,