Opinion ID: 1750362
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Affirmative-relief exception

Text: The only exception to total and complete sovereign immunity that we have recognized occurs when the state is the moving party seeking specific relief. In that instance the State is prohibited from raising the defense of sovereign immunity as a defense to a counterclaim or offset. See Fireman's Ins., supra (citing Parker v. Moore, 222 Ark. 811, 262 S.W.2d 891 (1953)). LandsnPulaski relies on Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. Lindsey, 299 Ark. 249, 771 S.W.2d 769 (1989) ( Lindsey II ) and Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. Parker, 248 Ark. 526, 453 S.W.2d 30 (1970) for its assertion that sovereign immunity was waived because the ADC filed an answer and made an appearance in this matter. Article 5, Section 20 does not prohibit the State from waiving immunity or voluntarily entering its appearance. See Lindsey II, supra . In Lindsey II , we stated: In [ Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v. Lindsey ] Lindsey I [292 Ark.314, 730 S.W.2d 474 (1987)] the Commission voluntarily entered its appearance and sought affirmative relief. Having entered its appearance on this matter in the Faulkner County Chancery Court proceeding the Commission cannot at this time claim sovereign immunity. We held in Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v. Parker, 248 Ark. 526, 453 S.W.2d 30 (1970), that the Game & Fish Commission was under no obligation to appear and defend a cause of action, but upon voluntarily doing so, it became bound by the decree of the judgment like any other person. Id. at 251, 771 S.W.2d at 770. However, the facts in Lindsey II and Parker are distinguishable from those of the present case. In Parker, the Arkansas State Game and Fish Commission filed its own action to quiet title. In Lindsey II , we held that the State could not claim sovereign immunity, having previously entered its appearance in Lindsey I, where the Commission filed an answer, a compulsory counterclaim, and a third-party complaint. Clearly, in both of these cases the State was asking for affirmative relief. In the present case, the ADC simply filed an answer after being served with the summons and complaint. The filing of this answer was a purely defensive action on the part of the ADC. In its answer, the ADC clearly asserted that LandsnPulaski's complaint was barred by sovereign immunity because the ADC is an agency of Arkansas. LandsnPulaski asserts that the ADC did not merely file an answer, but sought affirmative relief from the circuit court. In its answer, the ADC requests that the Complaint be dismissed, that title be quieted in ADC, and for all other appropriate relief. LandsnPulaski argues that the phrase all other appropriate relief is a request for affirmative relief that waived the ADC's sovereign immunity. However, in order to waive sovereign immunity, the request for relief must be specific. See Fireman's Ins., supra . Because all other appropriate relief is not a request for specific relief, we hold that the ADC did not waive its sovereign immunity and is therefore immune from suit. Thus, we hold that the circuit court was correct in granting the ADC's motion for judgment on the pleadings.