Opinion ID: 1751753
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Deficiency of the Summons

Text: Solis next argues that if personal verification of his answer was required by statute, then the summons was deficient, because it did not inform Solis of this requirement. The purpose of a summons, Solis asserts, is to give a defendant notice of what is required to avoid default, which it did not do because there were hidden requirements that were not apparent on the face of the summons. In addition, Solis argues that the summons was deficient in naming the 1999 Ford F-350 as the defendant rather than Solis himself. A circuit court's interpretation of a court rule is reviewed de novo by this court. See Sturdivant v. Sturdivant, 367 Ark. 514, 517, 241 S.W.3d 740, 743 (2006) (discussing this court's review of a circuit court's interpretation of the rules of professional conduct). This court has further stated: We construe rules using the same means, including canons of construction, that are used to interpret statutes. The first rule in considering the meaning and effect of a statute or rule is to construe it just as it reads, giving the words their ordinary and usually accepted meaning in common language. When the language is plain and unambiguous, there is no need to resort to rules of statutory construction. Aikens v. State, 368 Ark. 641, 643, 249 S.W.3d 788, 789-90 (2007) (quoting Nat'l Front Page, LLC v. State ex rel. Pryor, 350 Ark. 286, 291, 86 S.W.3d 848, 851 (2002)) (citations omitted). Stated differently, [n]either rules of construction nor rules of interpretation may be used to defeat the clear and certain meaning of a rule provision. Sturdivant, 367 Ark. at 517, 241 S.W.3d at 743. Solis correctly notes that service requirements imposed by court rules must be construed strictly and compliance with those requirements must be exact. Smith v. Sidney Moncrief Pontiac, Buick, GMC Co., 353 Ark. 701, 709, 120 S.W.3d 525, 530 (2003). Solis, however, misses the mark in asserting that the summons in question failed to meet these strict requirements. He first contends that the summons was defective by failing to mention the verification requirement contained in § 5-64-505(g)(4). This argument is without merit. Rule 4(b) of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure gives the requirements for a valid summons: 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; state the name and address of the plaintiff's 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. The rule lays out with great specificity the requirements for a proper summons. But nowhere does the rule require or even suggest that the summons must describe all of the requirements for a valid answer. This court has noted that [u]nder our rules, the summons is a process used to apprise a defendant that a suit is pending against him and afford him an opportunity to be heard. Nucor Corp. v. Kilman, 358 Ark. 107, 122-23, 186 S.W.3d 720, 729 (2004). Having been put on notice of a pending suit, it is the defendant's responsibility to research and comply with all relevant rules and statutes. In the case at hand, a perusal of § 5-64-505, which was specifically mentioned in the complaint as the statute under which forfeiture was to take place, would have informed Solis and his attorney of the verification requirement. Solis next claims that the summons was defective in naming the 1999 Ford F-350 as the defendant in the caption of the case rather than Solis. This argument, too, must fail. The summons was not defective in naming the 1999 Ford F-350 as a party in the case, as this is the accepted procedure for in rem forfeiture actions. See generally, $15,956 In U.S. Currency v. State, 366 Ark. 70, 233 S.W.3d 598 (2006); In re One 1994 Chevrolet Camaro, 343 Ark. 751, 37 S.W.3d 613 (2001); State v. One 1993 Toyota Camry, Vin. No. 4T1SK12EXPU283054, 333 Ark. 503, 969 S.W.2d 663 (1998). Furthermore, Rule 4 does not purport to dictate who must be named as a party in an in rem action. The summons, in addition, was not defective in later listing Carlos Alexander Solis as the defendant to whom the summons was directed. Although Solis was not the defendant listed in the caption, he was the person to whom notice of the forfeiture proceeding was being given. Listing him as the defendant to whom the summons was being issued was the best way to apprise him of the forfeiture proceeding, which was the purpose of the summons. We decline to interpret Rule 4(b) so as to preclude the State from using a summons in the form that is best calculated to give actual notice to a party in interest who is not the named defendant in an in rem proceeding. See Nucor, 358 Ark. 107, 122, 186 S.W.3d 720, 729 (We are not unmindful of our decisions where we have held that the technical requirements set out in Rule 4(b) must be construed strictly and compliance with those requirements must be exact. However, we have also found that a literal application which leads to absurd consequences should be rejected where an alternative interpretation effects the statute's purpose.). We hold that the summons was not deficient and that there was no defective process.