Litigation

Court of Appeals Unceremoniously Rejects Two Common Arguments Against Default Judgments

By H. William Allen et al.

The Court of Appeals affirmed a default judgment against an insurance company in Aegis Insurance Company v. Robertson, No. CA-07-872. The case started out commonly enough: the plaintiff filed suit in Benton County. "After receipt of service, counsel for appellant . . . contacted appellee’s attorney and requested a thirty-day extension of time to file a response. Appellee granted this request." Things got interesting after the 30-day extension expired:

[A]fter the expiration of that period [appellant's counsel] sent appellee a letter stating that its response had been delayed by stenographic and weather problems, that local counsel had been obtained, and that it would file a counterclaim for “abuse of process in a frivolous law suit” if appellee did not voluntarily dismiss her lawsuit.

Appellant filed an untimely answer one week later.

The Court of Appeals unceremoniously dealt with the idea that "stenographic and weather problems" were sufficient to justify setting aside a default judgment." Appellant also floated the argument that "grant of a default judgment in this case is contrary to the public policy preference for deciding cases on their merits." As the Court of Appeals noted, "that can be said of all default judgments."

Full post as published by Arkansas Business Litigation Blog on March 12, 2008 (boomark / email).