Tag: Service and Summons

ACOA: When Serving Attorney via Email, Burden to Establish Receipt Is on Server

Howell v. Arkansas Dept. of Human Service, 2018 Ark. App. 117, 545 S.W.3d 218 (2018).

Background

  • Dependency-neglect proceedings were brought against mother after she was charged with multiple offenses.
  • Department of Human Services filed termination of parental rights petition.
  • At hearing, parent’s attorney appeared and argued for a continuance so he could communicate with his client. He also argued that he never received service.
  • Applicable statute required service under Ark. R. Civ. P. 5, if parent had already been served under Rule 4 (as in this case).
  • DHS argued that it had served attorney with notice of the hearing via email.
  • Attorney said he could not find that he ever received the allegedly sent notice.
  • Trial court did not grant the requested continuance.

Issue

Was DHS required to establish that the email had been received by the attorney or just that it was sent to the attorney?

Ark. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)

“… When service is permitted upon an attorney, such service may be effected by electronic transmission, including e-mail, provided that the attorney being served has facilities within his or her office to receive and reproduce verbatim electronic transmissions. Service is complete upon transmission but is not effective if it does not reach the person to be served.”

Continue reading ACOA: When Serving Attorney via Email, Burden to Establish Receipt Is on Server

New Rule 87: Limited Scope Representation

As of December 14, 2017, there is a new Rule 87 in the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Under the new rule:

  • Scope of representation may be limited per Rule 1.2(c) of the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct.
  • A “notice of limited scope representation” should be filed at the initiation of a proceeding or beginning of the representation.
  • The notice is not required if representation is limited to drafting papers for an otherwise self-represented person. In that case, the attorney is not required to sign the drafted papers but must include a notation saying: “This document was prepared with the assistance of [insert name of attorney], a licensed Arkansas lawyer, pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Professional Conduct 1.2(c).”
  • Termination of the representation does not require court approval. It ends when the attorney files a “notice of completion of limited scope representation.” It must be served on the client.
  • Service is not required on limited-scope attorneys for matters outside the scope of representation.

Continue reading New Rule 87: Limited Scope Representation

ACOA: Summons Invalid for Omitting Defendant Name in “Directed to”

 

Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Skender, 2016 Ark. App. 206, 489 S.W.3d 176 (2016).

Arkansas Court of Appeals ruled that employee’s summons in his Federal Employees’ Liability Act suit against employer was invalid.

The “directed to” portion of the summons only referred to the name and address of the agent for service. It did not include the name or address of the defendant.

Continue reading ACOA: Summons Invalid for Omitting Defendant Name in “Directed to”

ACOA: Summons Directed to Multiple Defendants Not Fatally Defective


Hall v. State Farm Bank, 2015 Ark. App. 287, 462 S.W.3d 701 (2015).

Appellant debtor sought to invalidate a default judgment issued against him on the basis of an allegedly defective summons.

The debtor, John Hall, claimed that the summons sent to him was invalid because it stated “THE STATE OF ARKANSAS TO DEFENDANT: John and Susan Hall.” The debtor argued that his summons should have only been directed to him.

Continue reading ACOA: Summons Directed to Multiple Defendants Not Fatally Defective

SCOA: Summons Stating Incorrect Incarcerated Response Days Invalid Even If No Incarceration

Earls v. Harvest Credit Management VI-B, LLC, 2015 Ark. 175,460 S.W.3d 795 (2015).

The Arkansas Supreme Court held in this case that a summons was invalid for stating incorrectly the number of days in which the defendant would have to respond to summons if defendant was incarcerated.

The summons stated that defendants would have 30 days to respond if incarcerated rather than the correct number of 60.

Continue reading SCOA: Summons Stating Incorrect Incarcerated Response Days Invalid Even If No Incarceration