Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 16-4-102 (2020)

Service

✓ Arkansas Code release r76: Acts through about 2020 (2021-2025 sessions missing)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A.Manner and Proof of Service.

  1. When the law of this state authorizes service outside this state, the service, when reasonably calculated to give actual notice, may be made:
    1. By personal delivery in the manner prescribed for service within this state;
    2. In the manner prescribed by the law of the place in which the service is made for service in that place in an action in any of its courts of general jurisdiction;
    3. By any form of mail addressed to the person to be served and requiring a signed receipt;
    4. As directed by the foreign authority in response to a letter rogatory; or
    5. As directed by the court.
  2. Proof of service outside this state may be made by affidavit of the individual who made the service or in the manner prescribed by the law of this state, the order pursuant to which the service is made, or the law of the place in which the service is made for proof of service in an action in any of its courts of general jurisdiction. When service is made by mail, proof of service shall include a receipt signed by the addressee or other evidence of personal delivery to the addressee satisfactory to the court.
  3. Service under this section does not, of itself, require the recognition or enforcement of an order, judgment, or decree rendered outside this state.

B. Individuals Eligible to Make Service. Service outside this state may be made by any individual permitted to make service of process under the law of this state or the law of the place in which the service is made or who is designated by a court of this state. In addition, any attorney for a party is eligible to make service of process in the manner prescribed in subparagraphs (c) and (e) of paragraph 1 of subsection A. of this section.

C. Individuals to Be Served; Special Cases. When the law of this state requires that in order to effect service, one (1) or more designated individuals be served, service outside this state under this section must be made upon the individual or individuals.

D.Assistance to Tribunals and Litigants Outside this State.

1. Any court of record of this state may order service upon any person who is domiciled or can be found within this state of any document issued in connection with a proceeding in a tribunal outside this state. The order may be made upon application of any interested person or in response to a letter rogatory issued by a tribunal outside this state and shall direct the manner of service.

2. Service in connection with a proceeding in a tribunal outside this state may be made within this state without an order of court.

E. Other Provisions of Law Unaffected. This section does not repeal or modify any other law of this state permitting another procedure for service.

History. Acts 1963, No. 101, § 2; 1973, No. 37, § 1; A.S.A. 1947, § 27-2503.

Cross References. Method of service, §§ 16-58-120 — 16-58-128, § 16-58-130.

Summons, ARCP 4(c).

Case Notes

Alternative Service.

Where, under the circumstances, plaintiff was denied in its efforts to give defendants actual or personal service provided for out-of-state persons under the methods set forth under subdivision A.1. of this section and ARCP 4(e), plaintiff was relegated to obtain service of process on defendants under ARCP 4(f), which is another effective procedure for service under this section, the long-arm law; subsection E. of this section provides this section does not repeal or modify any other law of this state permitting another procedure for service. Horne v. Savers Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 295 Ark. 182, 747 S.W.2d 580 (1988).

Individuals Eligible to Make Service.

Summons could be served by the sheriff of the county in which property was located. Stivers v. Pacific Bldg., Inc., 269 Ark. 294, 601 S.W.2d 822 (1980).

Refusal of Summons.

One who is subject to the long-arm jurisdiction of a court of Arkansas cannot defeat jurisdiction by the simple expedient of refusing to accept a registered letter containing a summons. Merriott v. Whitsell, 251 Ark. 1031, 476 S.W.2d 230 (1972).

Service on Agent.

The long-arm statute displaced the common law principle of the transitory cause of action as a rationale for asserting jurisdiction over corporate defendants and required that the cause of action arise out of prescribed conduct such as the transaction of business in Arkansas. To the extent that Running v. Southwest Freight Lines, 227 Ark. 839, 303 S.W.2d 578 (1957), stands for the principle that service upon an agent appointed by a foreign corporation to receive process in this state confers personal jurisdiction in a transitory action regardless of the long-arm statute, it is overruled. Malone & Hyde, Inc. v. Chisley, 308 Ark. 308, 825 S.W.2d 558 (1992).

Validity of Service.

In a personal injury action arising from an automobile accident, where a copy of the complaint and summons, which was mailed to the out-of-state address of defendant's brother, was returned marked “undelivered,” plaintiff failed to exercise the reasonable diligence required in determining defendant's last known address and, therefore, the default judgment based on the purported service was void. Canal Ins. Co. v. Hall, 259 Ark. 797, 536 S.W.2d 702 (1976).

If a summons misstated the amount of time allowed for an answer, that discrepancy would not render the summons fatally defective so as to prevent service under this section. Stivers v. Pacific Bldg., Inc., 269 Ark. 294, 601 S.W.2d 822 (1980).

Nonresident corporation not authorized to do business in Arkansas was not properly served with notice under this section where the attempt to use the Secretary of State resulted in the notice being returned. A.O. Smith Harvestore Prods., Inc. v. Burnside, 282 Ark. 27, 665 S.W.2d 288 (1984).

Cited: Arkansas-Best Freight Sys. v. Youngblood, 359 F. Supp. 1115 (W.D. Ark. 1973); Renault Cent., Inc. v. International Imports of Fayetteville, Inc., 266 Ark. 155, 583 S.W.2d 10 (1979); Watling Ladder Co. v. Aldridge, 3 Ark. App. 27, 621 S.W.2d 499 (1981); Mountaire Feeds, Inc. v. Agro Impex, 677 F.2d 651 (8th Cir. 1982); Miller v. Tony & Susan Alamo Found., 924 F.2d 143 (8th Cir. 1991).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 1988–1988 · leading case: Horne v. Savers Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 747 S.W.2d 580 (Ark. 1988).
Horne v. Savers Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 747 S.W.2d 580 (Ark. 1988). · cites it 6× “Under the circumstances demonstrated here, appellee was denied in its efforts to give appellants actual or personal service provided for out-of-state persons under the methods set forth under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-4-102 (A)(1) (1987) and ARCP Rule 4(e).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.