Recent Developments - Arkansas Law Review

More documents

Recommendations

Info

(16) RECENT DEVELOPMENTS.DOC 4/23/2010 3:08:33 PM 450 ARKANSAS LAW REVIEW [Vol. 63:449 for purposes of the savings statute. On June 9, 2009, the trial court granted this motion. It subsequently denied the Tuckers’ motion for reconsideration, and the Tuckers appealed. On appeal, the primary issue facing the Arkansas Supreme Court was whether the Tuckers, by filing their second complaint and completing service for that complaint, had successfully commenced a “new action” for purposes of the savings statute. The court began by examining the language of the Arkansas savings statute, which provides: If any action is commenced within the time respectively prescribed in this act, in §§ 16-116-101 – 16-116-107, in §§ 16-114-201 – 16-114-209, or in any other act, and the plaintiff therein suffers a nonsuit, or after a verdict for him or her the judgment is arrested, or after judgment for him or her the judgment is reversed on appeal or writ of error, the plaintiff may commence a new action within one (1) year after the nonsuit suffered or judgment arrested or reversed. (quoting Ark. Code Ann. 16-56-126(a)(1) (Repl. 2005)). Overall, the court noted, the savings statute is to receive a “liberal and equitable construction” to give parties a reasonable amount of time to renew their cause of action. (citing Rettig v. Ballard, 2009 Ark. 629, at 4, __ S.W.3d __, __). As a result, in prior opinions, the court had held that, to “commence a new action” and take advantage of the savings statute, the plaintiff need only file a complaint and complete timely service on a defendant, even if that service is later invalidated. (citing id.at 4, __ S.W.3d at __). On appeal, both the plaintiffs and defendant cited cases from the Arkansas Court of Appeals in support of their respective positions. (citing Tech. Parts., Inc. v. Regions Bank, 97 Ark. App. 229, 245 S.W.3d 687 (2006); Hill-Rom, Inc. v. Swink, 65 Ark. App. 71, 984 S.W.2d 834 (1999)). In Technology Partners, which Sullivant cited, a plaintiff took a voluntary nonsuit and, nearly one year later, attempted to file an amended complaint under the old docket number, naming a new defendant. (citing Tech. Parts., 97 Ark. App. at 238, 245 S.W.3d at 695). When the trial court dismissed the amended complaint due to the prior dismissal of the claim, the plaintiff filed a new complaint more than a year after the original voluntary nonsuit. (citing id.). The Arkansas Court of Appeals held that the
(16) RECENT DEVELOPMENTS.DOC 4/23/2010 3:08:33 PM 2010] RECENT DEVELOPMENTS 451 plaintiff had not commenced a new action within the one-year period of the savings statute. On the other hand, in Hill-Rom, which the Tuckers cited, a plaintiff had a cause of action dismissed against one defendant and subsequently filed an “amended complaint” under the same docket number against a new defendant and stating a new cause of action. (citing Hill-Rom, 65 Ark. App. at 74, 984 S.W.2d at 836). The new defendant argued for dismissal on the grounds that, due to the dismissal of the original complaint, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to accept an amended complaint. (citing id.) The court of appeals rejected this argument and held that, given the need to construe pleadings liberally, the amended complaint had to be construed as a new cause of action, even though it was filed under the old docket number. (citing id.) The Arkansas Supreme Court distinguished Technology Partners because, in that case, the new defendant had never been brought into a lawsuit within the applicable statute of limitations, and, as a result, the plaintiff could not have availed itself of the savings statute as to that defendant. (citing Tech. Parts., 97 Ark. App. at 238, 245 S.W.3d at 695). On the other hand, in this case, the Tuckers had timely made Sullivant a defendant in the original, nonsuited cause of action. As to Hill- Rom, while that case was not directly on point in that it did not involve the savings statute, the court was persuaded by its reasoning. First, it agreed that pleadings are to be liberally construed. (citing Ark. R. Civ. P. 8(f)). Second, it agreed that the assignment of an old docket number should not negate a new complaint that states a new cause of action. Further, the court held that this interpretation was consistent with the purpose of the savings statute, which is to protect plaintiffs who timely file in good faith from suffering “a complete loss of relief on the merits because of a procedural defect.” (quoting Rettig v. Ballard, 2009 Ark. 629, at 3-4, __ S.W.3d __, __). In this case, the Tuckers filed their second complaint and completed service on Sullivant within the one-year period of the savings statute, and, accordingly, the Arkansas Supreme Court held that they had met the requirements of that statute. To hold otherwise, the court declared, would be “exalting form over substance and violating the stated purpose of the savings statute.” As a result, the court reversed and remanded the
Page 1: (16) RECENT DEVELOPMENTS.DOC 4/23/2
Page 5 and 6: (16) RECENT DEVELOPMENTS.DOC 4/23/2
Page 17: (16) RECENT DEVELOPMENTS.DOC 4/23/2

Recent Developments - Arkansas Law Review

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?