Ark. Code Ann. § 16-66-602 (2026)

Case Notes

Purpose.

The primary purpose of this section is to provide a summary judgment procedure in which a party in whose favor a judgment has been rendered may enforce that judgment promptly in any jurisdiction where the judgment debtor can be found, thereby enabling the judgment creditor to obtain relief in an expeditious manner. McDermott v. Great Plains Equip. Leasing Corp., 40 Ark. App. 8, 839 S.W.2d 547 (1992); Chemical Methods Leasco, Inc. v. Ellison, 46 Ark. App. 288, 879 S.W.2d 467 (1994).

This subchapter requires only that the foreign judgment be regular on its face and duly authenticated to be subject to registration. Chemical Methods Leasco, Inc. v. Ellison, 46 Ark. App. 288, 879 S.W.2d 467 (1994).

Applicability.

Circuit court did not err in concluding that the creditor's foreign judgment did not serve as a lien on real estate owned by the judgment debtor where the creditor had not registered the judgment as required by Ark. R. Civ. P. 44. Although the foreign judgment was accompanied with a certificate of authenticity, the judgment itself was not attested or certified to be a true copy of the original document as required by the court rule. Agility Fin. Credit Union v. Largent, 2018 Ark. App. 358, 552 S.W.3d 471 (2018).

Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, § 16-66-601 et seq., was enacted before Ark. Const. Amend. 80 and § 16-11-301, and Ark. R. Civ. P. 44 therefore supersedes it with respect to how foreign judgments must be filed with an Arkansas court. Agility Fin. Credit Union v. Largent, 2018 Ark. App. 358, 552 S.W.3d 471 (2018).

Application.

Petition to revive a foreign judgment was properly granted because it was authenticated under Ark. R. Civ. P. 44 where it was signed by a clerk for a United States Bankruptcy Court; the Arkansas Supreme Court's rule-making authority over procedural matters was exclusive. It was argued that the proper authentication process was not followed when a certified copy of the judgment was attached to an application. Bird v. Shaffer, 2012 Ark. App. 464 (2012).

Collateral Defenses.

Defenses which are raised for a purpose other than to impeach, modify or overturn a judgment, i.e., which are collateral, may not be raised in the registration proceeding. Purser v. Corpus Christi State Nat'l Bank, 256 Ark. 452, 508 S.W.2d 549 (1974), and, Purser v. Corpus Christi State Nat'l Bank, 258 Ark. 54, 522 S.W.2d 187 (1975) (decision to prior law).

Entitlement to Registration.

Where an out-of-state decree was regular on its face and recited all requisite jurisdictional facts, the decree was properly authenticated and entitled to registration; it could thereafter be attacked only on grounds of fraud in the procurement of it or want of jurisdiction. Dolin v. Dolin, 9 Ark. App. 329, 659 S.W.2d 954 (1983) (decision under prior law).

Failure to Register.

Where foreign court issued a judgment in favor of the judgment debtor on its counterclaim against the creditor, but the debtor did not ask the court to register the judgment in its favor, the trial court will not be reversed for failure to award relief for which no request was made. Monark Boat Co. v. Fischer, 292 Ark. 544, 732 S.W.2d 123 (1987) (decision under prior law).

Future Payments.

While some jurisdictions do not favor registration of a foreign decree requiring future payments, such as alimony or child support, this state favors that view; otherwise, parties could never, as a practical matter, enforce judgments and decrees if one party left the state of orginal jurisdiction. Nehring v. Taylor, 266 Ark. 253, 583 S.W.2d 56 (1979) (decision under prior law).

Proper Registration Accepted.

Once a decree or judgment is accepted as proper for registration, then it becomes in effect an Arkansas judgment, and will remain on the judgment books to be enforced by Arkansas in the future. Nehring v. Taylor, 266 Ark. 253, 583 S.W.2d 56 (1979) (decision under prior law).

Judgment debtor, which obtained a judgment against a debtor in Texas, and recorded its judgment in the real property records of an Arkansas county, had an enforceable judgment lien against the debtor's real property in that county. United States v. Neal, 255 F.R.D. 638 (W.D. Ark. 2008), aff'd, 391 Fed. Appx. 569 (8th Cir. 2010).

Trial court had jurisdiction to issue a writ of garnishment upon an employer because a company that was awarded a judgment against an employee properly registered the valid Florida judgment in the trial court. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. D.A.N. Joint Venture III L.P., 374 Ark. 489, 288 S.W.3d 627 (2008).

Circuit court erred in granting a declaratory judgment in favor of a judgment debtor's widow because the foreign judgment that the judgment creditors registered against the debtor was finalized before he died, and thus, the judgment acted as a lien against the debtor's, and now the widow's, real property. Harris v. Temple, 2013 Ark. App. 605 (2013).

Protection From Collateral Attack.

Foreign judgments, regardless of whether entered by default, are protected against collateral attack by the full faith and credit clause of U.S. Const., Art. IV, § 1, unless the defenses of fraud in the procurement or want of jurisdiction in the rendering court can be established. Butler Fence Co. v. Acme Fence & Iron Co., 42 Ark. App. 30, 852 S.W.2d 826 (1993).

Registration Improper.

The trial court erred in permitting the registration of the lessor's foreign judgment where the other state's long-arm statute was not strictly complied with, and the lessee was not subject to the personal jurisdiction of the other state. Bi-State Energy, Inc. v. Tidewater Compression, Inc., 19 Ark. App. 148, 718 S.W.2d 117 (1986) (decision under prior law).

Relitigation Prohibited.

Former statute did not permit the relitigation of any issue finally determined in the foreign court, for those matters are foreclosed. Dolin v. Dolin, 9 Ark. App. 329, 659 S.W.2d 954 (1983) (decision under prior law).

Res Judicata.

The decision of the foreign court that it had jurisdiction of the judgment debtor was binding on it, and while it could have appealed that decision, it could not attack it in a collateral proceeding because of the doctrine of res judicata. Monark Boat Co. v. Fischer, 292 Ark. 544, 732 S.W.2d 123 (1987) (decision under prior law).

Where the plaintiff contested personal jurisdiction in a Texas court and did not appeal that determination, the Texas court's finding that it had personal jurisdiction is res judicata and is not subject to collateral attack. May v. May, 57 Ark. App. 215, 944 S.W.2d 550 (1997).

Summary Judgment.

Trial court's premature ruling on motion for summary judgment where same jurisdictional question had been resolved in foreign court was not prejudicial to defendant in judgment registration proceeding. Purser v. Corpus Christi State Nat'l Bank, 258 Ark. 54, 522 S.W.2d 187 (1975) (decision under prior law).

Cited: Amant v. Callahan, 341 Ark. 857, 20 S.W.3d 896 (2000).