Court Opinion

ID: 9652736
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:31:12.004924+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:53.801932
License: Public Domain

Steele Hays, Justice, dissenting. In this case, a copy of the answer filed with the District Court was sent to the opposing counsel within the time allowed by Rule 12. The copy sent to the attorney met the requirements for proper service under ARCP 5. There is absolutely no dispute that this pleading was received, and that opposing counsel had notice of the filing as well as the contents of the pleading. For this reason I cannot agree with the conclusion reached by the majority. While the language of Rule 12 states that the answer is to be filed rather than served, that is not dispositive of the issue. The Reporter’s Notes to Rule 12 state, with regard to that point: 5. Rule 12 substitutes the word “file” for serve and requires that the responsive pleading be filed within the time prescribed by this rule as opposed to serving the pleadings as is the case under FRCP 12. By using this terminology, it is believed that arguments can be avoided as to when a pleading was served. (My emphasis). The language in the Notes, referring to the use of filing over service as a choice of “terminology,” plainly suggests that the filing of the answer is not a requirement, but rather, merely the determinative factor when the issue of timeliness of service arises. Furthermore, there is nothing in this comment that suggests that an answer that is served in a timely fashion will not fulfill the requirements of the rule if the filing is out of time. Rule 12 was altered from the form used in the Federal Rules, not for an innate preference for filing as opposed to service, but for the purpose of avoiding disputes when the issue of timeliness over service arose. When there is no dispute as to the date of service of the answer, there is no need to resort to the date of filing to make a determination as to the timeliness of the pleading. When actual notice by way of service is given to a party and there is absolutely no dispute as to the timeliness of that service, common sense directs that the filing provision of Rule 12 should prevail. We have repeatedly held that default judgments are not favored by the courts and should be avoided when possible. Tapp v. Fowler, 291 Ark. 309, 724 S.W.2d 176 (1987); Cammack v. Chalmers, 284 Ark. 161, 680 S.W.2d 689 (1984); A.O. Smith Harvester Products, Inc. v. Burnside, 282 Ark. 27, 665 S.W.2d 288 (1984); Winters v. Lewis, 260 Ark. 563, 542 S.W.2d 746 (1976); Perry v. Bale Chevrolet Co., 263 Ark. 552, 566 S.W.2d 150 (1978). We have further found that substantial compliance by a defendant is sufficient to avoid the harshness of a default judgment in several instances. Winters v. Lewis, supra; Perry v. Bale Chevrolet, supra; Cummings v. Lord’s Art Galleries, 227 Ark. 972, 302 S.W.2d 792 (1957); Easley v. Inglis, 233 Ark. 589, 346 S.W.2d 206 (1961). While the language of “substantial compliance” was not used specifically, that was essentially our holding in two more recent cases, Tapp v. Fowler, supra and Cammack v. Chalmers, supra. Substantial compliance has been our way of defining a situation where we found that the rules had been complied with sufficiently to satisfy the rule and its purpose, and where a different holding would lead to obvious injustice. I have no difficulty in concluding that the timely service of the answer in this case was substantial compliance with Rule 12. Given the circumstances of this case and the comments explaining Rule 12, it is clear that the rule and its purpose have been satisfied. As we stated in Tapp v. Fowler, supra, in reversing a default judgment that had been granted on technically correct, but unsupportable grounds, “To hold [otherwise] would defy common sense, and, at a minimum, place form over substance.”