{
  "id": 1888420,
  "name": "Richard GREEN v. Kerry YARBROUGH",
  "name_abbreviation": "Green v. Yarbrough",
  "decision_date": "1989-06-12",
  "docket_number": "89-6",
  "first_page": "175",
  "last_page": "177",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "299 Ark. 175"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "771 S.W.2d 760"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "275 Ark. 61",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1753647
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/275/0061-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "298 Ark. 461",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1889844
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/298/0461-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "266 Ark. 155",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8717652
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/266/0155-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "464 S.W.2d 753",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "250 Ark. 249",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1636870
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/250/0249-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-65-108",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "267 Ark. 83",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1719826
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/267/0083-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 290,
    "char_count": 3691,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.906,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.4046632371334332e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6453957354270461
    },
    "sha256": "e760b6974a8486286f9af3e721dad2e019412929cdbabf5c263a53616a556441",
    "simhash": "1:152f156f4fc999e0",
    "word_count": 639
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:11:40.326030+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Richard GREEN v. Kerry YARBROUGH"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "David Newbern, Justice.\nOn March 13,1985, the appellee Kerry Yarbrough filed a complaint against the appellant Richard Green alleging that Green had assaulted him and seeking personal injury damages. Yarbrough attempted to serve process pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(8)(A) which permits service upon an Arkansas resident by any form of mail addressed to the defendant with a return receipt requested and delivery restricted to addressee or agent. Green no longer resided in Arkansas. His sister, Sharon Green, signed the receipt, \u201cRichard Green by SG.\u201d We hold the service was improper and thus the trial court erred in refusing to set aside the default judgment which had been entered based upon that service.\nAs the motion to set aside the default judgment was not made until after 90 days from the date the judgment was entered, the trial court declined to set the judgment aside because Green had not shown a meritorious defense as required by Ark. R. Civ. P. 60(d). Rule 60 applies when the moving party attacks the service of process, presents evidence of a meritorious defense, and seeks to have a trial. That was our holding in White v. Ray, 267 Ark. 83, 589 S.W.2d 28 (1979). In that case we also pointed out that when a motion alleges that the judgment is void, and the challenge is based on what is now Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-65-108 (1987), the movant who had no notice whatever of the suit against him need not allege a meritorious defense to have it set aside, citing Halliman v. Stiles, 250 Ark. 249, 464 S.W.2d 753 (1971).\nThe White and Halliman cases, along with Renault Central, Inc. v. International Imports of Fayetteville, Inc., 266 Ark. 155, 583 S.W.2d 10 (1979), imply that the person moving to have the judgment against him set aside for lack of proper service of process must show lack of actual knowledge of the service of process. In Wilburn v. Keenan Companies, Inc., 298 Ark. 461, 768 S.W.2d 531 (1989), we made it clear that actual knowledge of a proceeding does not validate defective service of process. See also Tucker v. Johnson, 275 Ark. 61, 628 S.W.2d 281 (1982).\nGreen argues on this appeal that the process was not properly served. We agree because, as we wrote in Wilburn v. Keenan Companies, Inc., supra, the \u201cagent\u201d to whom Rule 4(d)(8) refers must be an agent appointed pursuant to the applicable postal regulations. Not only was Sharon Green not such an agent, the receipt she signed did not even suggest that she was, although the postman who made the delivery testified she convinced him she had authority to receive Richard Green\u2019s mail. She did not sign as Richard Green\u2019s agent. She merely signed his name and her initials.\nYarbrough\u2019s response to Green\u2019s argument that service was improper and thus the judgment was void is twofold. First, he contends Rule 4(d)(1) applies and the service is valid'because it was left at Green\u2019s \u201cdwelling house or usual place of abode with some person residing therein who is at least 14 years of age.\u201d That subsection of the rule does not apply for two reasons. This was service by mail which must be done in accordance with the separate provisions of Rule 4 regulating service by mail. Also, it was undisputed that the place where the mail was delivered was not then the \u201cdwelling house or usual place of abode\u201d of Richard Green.\nYarbrough\u2019s second argument is that Sharon Green was Richard Green\u2019s agent. As noted above, we settled that question in the Wilburn case.\nReversed and dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "David Newbern, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Williams & Brinton, by: Charles N. Williams, for appellant.",
      "Jerome J. Paddock, Jr., P.A., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Richard GREEN v. Kerry YARBROUGH\n89-6\n771 S.W.2d 760\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered June 12, 1989\nWilliams & Brinton, by: Charles N. Williams, for appellant.\nJerome J. Paddock, Jr., P.A., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0175-01",
  "first_page_order": 199,
  "last_page_order": 201
}