Ark. Code Ann. » Title 18 Chapter 60
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 18-60-301 (2020)

Legislative intent

✓ Arkansas Code release r76: Acts through about 2020 (2021-2025 sessions missing)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. Acts 1875, No. 85 [repealed], as amended by Acts 1875 (Adj. Sess.) No. 56; Acts 1891, No. 8 [repealed] and Acts 1947, No. 373 [repealed], which declare and describe the cause of action for forcible entry and detainer and unlawful detainer and prescribe the procedure for carrying out the rights and remedies granted to affected parties thereunder, is in need of clarification and revision in order that persons affected thereby may be afforded reasonable opportunity to be heard on legitimate objections to writs of possession entered in accordance with the provisions of this law.
  2. It is, therefore, found to be to the best interest of the people of this state that an additional procedure be specifically prescribed for the enforcement of the rights of parties claiming a cause of action by reason of forcible entry and detainer or unlawful detainer of real property and those persons against whom such causes of action are brought.

History. Acts 1981, No. 615, § 1; A.S.A. 1947, § 34-1501.

Research References

U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev.

Lynn Foster, The Hands of the State: The Failure to Vacate Statute and Residential Tenants’ Rights In Arkansas, 36 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 1 (2013).

Case Notes

Termination of Sublease Prior to Bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy court found that the debtor's sublease was terminated by the creditor sublessor by service of a notice to quit almost five months before the debtor filed for bankruptcy. Thus, the sublease was not part of the debtor's bankruptcy estate and the creditor was granted relief from the automatic stay to pursue the creditor's unlawful detainer action. Section 18-60-301 et seq., under which an agreed order had been entered in the detainer action, does not provide a tenant with an opportunity to cure a default before the issuance of a writ of possession. Staffmark Inv. LLC v. Foote, 277 B.R. 393 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2002).

Cited: Gorman v. Ratliff, 289 Ark. 332, 712 S.W.2d 888 (1986); McCrory v. Johnson, 296 Ark. 231, 755 S.W.2d 566 (1988).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1988–2025 · leading case: Duhon v. State, 774 S.W.2d 830 (Ark. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Duhon v. State, 774 S.W.2d 830 (Ark. 1989). · cites it 4× “'" The Gorman decision interpreted Act 615 of 1981, Ark.Code Ann. § 18-60-301 et seq. (1987), concerning forcible entry and detainer and unlawful detainer, as evincing a desire by the legislature to extend additional *837 protection to parties in possession of property before…”
McCrory v. Johnson, 755 S.W.2d 566 (Ark. 1988). · cites it 2× “Subsequently, Barbara McCrory, individually and on behalf of her son, Thomas McCrory, filed a counterclaim and an amended complaint and counterclaim against Houston and Johnson alleging, among other causes of action, that they had violated the Arkansas forcible entry and…”
D&T Pure Trust v. DWB, LLC, 2019 Ark. App. 122, 572 S.W.3d 451. · cites it 3× “Shortly thereafter, on June 23, 2014, Boydston filed this unlawful-detainer action in the Crawford County Circuit Court pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated sections 18-60-301 et seq. (Repl. 2015). In his complaint, Boydston alleged that Brown breached the lease, the lease had…”
Connie Young, F/D/A Connie Jean Austin, & All Other Occupants of 94 W. Hills Circle, Greenbrier, Ar 72058 v. Donald Scott Boggs, Tr. of the Peggy Ann Boggs Young Revocable Trust, 2025 Ark. App. 30, 704 S.W.3d 652. · cites it 3× “Connie asserts that Boggs’s action was premised on ejectment under Ark. Code Ann. §§ 18-60-201 et seq. and unlawful detainer under Ark.”
Staffmark Inv. LLC v. Foote (In Re Foote), 277 B.R. 393 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2002). · cites it 2× “Additionally, Arkansas’ unlawful detainer statute (ArkCode Ann. § 18-60-301, et. seq.), under which the Agreed Order was entered, does not provide a tenant with an opportunity to cure a default prior to the issuance of a writ of possession.”
Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Johnson, No. 4:20-cv-00121 (E.D. Ark. Apr. 1, 2020). “The Court has reviewed the civil cover sheet submitted by the Johnsons with their notice of removal (Dkt. No. 2-1). In “Section I. Plaintiffs” on the cover sheet, the Johnsons identify themselves as peoples of the United States of America and inhabitants of Pulaski County (Id.”
Marie King, No. 4:19-bk-16475 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. Apr. 30, 2020). “(B) Alternatively, the purchaser may bring an action for forcible entry and detainer under § 18-60-301 et seq. ARK. CODE. ANN. § 18-50-107(f) (emphasis added).”
Clifford W. Christian & Karen D. Christian v. Swo Props., Inc., an Arkansas Corp. Doing Bus. in Boone Cnty., Arkansas, 2024 Ark. App. 524, 700 S.W.3d 226. “Second, the Christians argue they cannot be found in contempt of an order for ejectment in an unlawful detainer because they were not properly served by the Boone County Sheriff with a writ of possession issued by the circuit clerk, which they argue is required before a motion…”
Stamps v. Brown-Epps, 2015 Ark. App. 631, 474 S.W.3d 906. “The trial court found that Arkansas’s unlawful-detainer statute does not require a landlord-tenant relationship to sustain an action pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated sections 18-60-301 et seq. Arkansas Code Annotated section 18-60-304" lists those actions that constitute…”
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.