Opinion ID: 2361807
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Hearing on Damages

Text: Appellant's second argument for reversal is that the circuit court erred in failing to provide notice of the hearing on damages to Appellant or, in the alternative, in failing to grant a new hearing on damages. Though Appellant recognizes that Rule 55 is silent as to what notice, if any, a defaulting defendant is due with respect to a damages hearing, Appellant nonetheless maintains that the circuit court should have provided notice of the hearing. In support of this assertion, Appellant offers cases holding that a defendant in a default-judgment case has the right to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses, to introduce evidence in mitigation of damages and to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal. See, e.g. Clark v. Michael Motor Co., 322 Ark. 570, 910 S.W.2d 697 (1995); B & F Eng'g, Inc. v. Cotroneo, 309 Ark. 175, 830 S.W.2d 835 (1992). While these cases do allow a defendant to present evidence at the damages hearing, they make no statement regarding the defendant's right to notice of the hearing. Appellant suggests that because defendants have the right to cross-examine witnesses and present mitigating evidence, they must also have the right to notice of the hearing; such an assumption, however, is not necessarily true. A defendant could have the right to introduce evidence at the hearing if he or she is present, but not have the right to notice of the hearing. Indeed, we have held that although a hearing is required to determine the amount of damages, subsection (b) of Rule 55 does not require that notice of the hearing be given to a defaulting defendant who has not appeared. Tharp v. Smith, supra ; Divelbliss v. Suchor, 311 Ark. 8, 841 S.W.2d 600 (1992). The court in Divelbliss explained as follows: Some jurisdictions require that notice of the hearing be given to the defaulting defendant even when he has never appeared, but the Arkansas rule, A.R.C.P. 55(b), does not require that notice be given to a defaulting defendant who has not appeared. Perhaps the reason is that it would be superfluous to again serve a defendant who already received one notice but failed on an ongoing basis to respond. Divelbliss v. Suchor, 311 Ark. at 16, 841 S.W.2d at 604. Here, the hearing on damages was on April 18, 2005, and Appellant did not make her first appearance in the case until June 2, 2005, when she filed her motion to set aside the default judgment. Thus, we conclude that the circuit court did not err in failing to give Appellant notice of the hearing on damages or, in the alternative, in failing to grant a new hearing on damages.