Stivers v. Pacific Bldg., Inc., 80-45

Decision Date23 June 1980
Docket NumberNo. 80-45,80-45
Citation601 S.W.2d 822,269 Ark. 294
PartiesEthel M. STIVERS, Appellant, v. PACIFIC BUILDING, INC., Appellee.
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

C. Dan Stripling, Clinton, for appellant.

Baker & Pittman by John Mauzy Pittman, West Helena, for appellee.

FOGLEMAN, Chief Justice.

Appellant, Ethel M. Stivers, a resident of Iowa, entered into a contract with Bartlett Homes, Inc., to construct a dwelling house for her on a lot she owned at Fairfield Bay in Van Buren County. Bartlett Homes purchased a modular pre-cut home from Pacific Building, Inc., who brought this action claiming a materialman's lien on appellant's lot for the purchase price. Mrs. Stivers seeks a reversal of the court's decree against her upon two grounds, i. e., that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations and the lien statute is unconstitutional. We find no merit in her contentions and affirm the judgment.

The issues as to constitutionality raised by appellant are the same ones advanced and rejected in South Central District of the Pentecostal Church of God of America v. Bruce-Rogers Company, 269 Ark. ---, 599 S.W.2d 702 (1980), so we need not consider that ground further.

Appellant contends that the action was not commenced within 120 days after materials were supplied by Pacific. The suit was filed without notice of the lien having been given, so the action was barred unless it was commenced within that period. The complaint was filed on July 26, 1978. It contained an allegation that Mrs. Stivers was a resident of Van Buren County. Summons was issued on the date the complaint was filed and returned by the sheriff on July 28, 1978, with the notation "Moved out of State" in the space provided for a return. On September 13, 1978, Pacific filed an amendment to its complaint, alleging that Mrs. Stivers was a non-resident of the State of Arkansas, residing at Bettendorf, Iowa, and asked that service be had upon her under Ark.Stat.Ann. § 27-2503 et seq. (Repl.1979). A summons was issued and served pursuant to that statute. This service is not questioned, except for its timeliness. Mrs. Stivers filed her answer on October 6, 1978. In it, she denied that she was, or ever had been, a resident of Arkansas, or subject to service of process in Arkansas. She admitted ownership of the property on which the lien was claimed. She denied that the action had been instituted within 120 days.

In an affidavit supporting a motion for summary judgment, she stated that she and her husband purchased property in Fairfield Bay in 1967, and visited there twice annually until his death in 1972. She stated that she visited Fairfield Bay only three times after her husband's death, and prior to 1976, but in 1976 and 1977 she visited Fairfield Bay twice each year. She stated that she visited one week in April, 1978, but did not return to Arkansas until after she was served on this action. Virgil Parks, a foreman for Bartlett Homes, who dealt with the representative of Pacific, testified that, during the course of construction after the contract was entered into, he had seen Mrs. Stivers on the premises on one occasion. The contract was entered into on April 4, 1978. He said that she was there in the latter stages of construction when the house was ready for installation of cabinets. J. L. Bartlett, who entered into the contract with Mrs. Stivers, said that she was in Arkansas discussing financing of the house in November, 1977. Mrs. Stivers executed a power of attorney in Van Buren County in October, 1977. It authorized Bartlett or Stan Hanford, of Bartlett Land & Realty Company, to secure the loan of funds necessary to complete the dwelling.

Mrs. Stivers testified that in October, 1977, she met with Bartlett at his office, selected a plan for the house and signed many papers. She said that she planned to live in the house whenever she moved to Fairfield Bay, sometime in the future. She stated that she returned to Arkansas in April, 1978, and remained for a little less than a week, during which time she visited the job site, talked to Bartlett and did various other things "like that." She said that she was not in Arkansas in July or August of 1978 and had had no plans to be in the state during that period.

Under Ark.Stat.Ann. § 27-301 (Repl.1979), the then governing statute, an action is commenced by filing a complaint and causing a summons to be issued and placed in the hands of "the sheriff of the proper county or counties." Appellant contends that the action was not commenced by issuance of the summons to the sheriff of Van Buren County on July 26, 1978, unless Mrs. Stivers was a resident of the county or amenable to service there within 20 days after summons was handed the sheriff. We do not agree.

Appellant relies upon Williams v. Edmondson, 257 Ark. 837, 520 S.W.2d 260, in which we held that the proper county in a local action, as this one is, is the county in which the defendant resides or the county in which he may be served with process. Under the facts in that case, that holding correctly defined the "proper county." Putting aside, however, any expectation that Pacific might have had that Mrs. Stivers could be served with summons in Van Buren County, or any contention that she might have had a residence there, even though she was not domiciled in the county, the proper county under the Uniform Interstate &...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Smith v. Sidney Moncrief Pontiac, Buick Gmc
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • June 19, 2003
    ...Citicorp Industrial Credit, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 305 Ark. 530, 809 S.W.2d 815 (1991). 2. Smith cites Stivers v. Pacific Bldg., Inc., 269 Ark. 294, 601 S.W.2d 822 (1980), to support her argument that service of a defective summons commences an action for limitation purposes. Her re......
  • Arkansas State Highway Commission v. First Pyramid Life Ins. Co. of America, 80-13
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • June 23, 1980
  • Gilder v. Cedar Ridge Farms, Ltd.
    • United States
    • Arkansas Court of Appeals
    • November 20, 2013
    ...for the proposition that a cover letter can cure a defective summons. In addition, Cedar Ridge's citation of Stivers v. Pacific Building, Inc., 269 Ark. 294, 601 S.W.2d 822 (1980), is misplaced. That case focused on whether service of a defective summons commences an action for limitation p......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT