Womack v. Horton
| Decision Date | 10 September 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-109,84-109 |
| Citation | 283 Ark. 227,674 S.W.2d 935 |
| Parties | Homer WOMACK and Pat Womack, Appellants, v. Roy HORTON d/b/a Horton Tomato Company, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Haley & Claycomb by Robert Stark Ligon, P.A., Warren, for appellee.
Gibson Law Firm by John F. Gibson, Jr., Monticello, for appellants.
The sole issue on this appeal is whether the trial court was right in deeming plaintiff's requests for admissions admitted because the responses were not filed within the thirty days allowed by ARCP Rule 36(a ). We find the trial court was correct. Jurisdiction is in this court under Rule 29(1)(c).
After the complaint and answers had been filed, the plaintiff, on September 9, 1983, filed seventeen requests for admissions. At the same time, copies of the requests were mailed to the defendant's attorney. On October 27, 1983, which the trial court found to be at least 45 days after completion of service, the defendants filed answers which were not verified. On November 3, 1983, the trial court ruled that the requests for admissions should be deemed admitted and that, since no material facts were in dispute, the plaintiff was entitled to a summary judgment. Verified answers were later filed, on November 28, 1983, and the defendants moved to vacate the judgment. The trial judge ruled that once requests for admissions are deemed admitted, the court is without power or discretion to permit a withdrawal or amendment of the admissions. ARCP Rule 36(b) does give the trial court power and discretion to permit withdrawal of an admission. The rule states that "any matter admitted ... is conclusively established unless the court on motion permits withdrawal or amendment of the admission."
The result, however, must be affirmed in this case. The trial court deemed the non-verified Requests for Admissions to be admitted because the response was 18 days late. The rule provides that the "matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after service of the requests, or within such shorter or longer time as the court may allow, the party to whom the request is directed serves upon the party requesting the admission a written answer or objection addressed to the matter, signed and verified by the party or by his attorney ..." (emphasis added). The policy of this court through the years has been to require compliance with the rule governing responses to requests for admissions. Barnett Restaurant Supply,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chiodini v. Lock
...responsesdid not comport with Rule 36(a)'s requirement that responses be signed by the party or his attorney. See Womack v. Horton, 283 Ark. 227, 674 S.W.2d 935 (1984). However, a circuit court may, upon motion, grant additional time to answer requests for admission, even if the time for an......
-
Gibson v. Gibson
...for admissions by making it a practice of deeming the requests admitted when the responses are not on time. See Womack v. Horton, 283 Ark. 227, 674 S.W.2d 935 (1984). However, the particular facts of each case must be examined and, when the facts warrant, acceptance of late responses is req......
-
Norrell v. Giles, M.D., et al
...are deemed admitted. See, e.g., Borg-Warner Acceptance Corp. v. Kesterson, 288 Ark. 611, 708 S.W.2d 606 (1986); Womack v. Horton, 283 Ark. 227, 674 S.W.2d 935 (1984); Beck v. Merritt, 280 Ark. 331, 657 S.W.2d 549 (1983); Barnett Restaurant Supply, Inc. v. Vance, 279 Ark. 222, 650 S.W.2d 568......
-
Borg-Warner Acceptance Corp. v. Kesterson, BORG-WARNER
...was not timely filed. In such cases we have consistently held that an untimely response results in an admission. In Womack v. Horton, 283 Ark. 227, 674 S.W.2d 935 (1984), we The policy of this court through the years has been to require compliance with the rule governing responses to reques......