{ "id": 1885478, "name": "ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION v. Bessie W. COFFELT and Kenneth C. Coffelt", "name_abbreviation": "Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Coffelt", "decision_date": "1990-01-08", "docket_number": "89-160", "first_page": "112", "last_page": "115", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "301 Ark. 112" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "782 S.W.2d 45" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7\u00a7 27-67-301", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "293 S.W. 743", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "year": 1927, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "173 Ark. 796", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8724493 ], "year": 1927, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/173/0796-01" ] }, { "cite": "297 S.W. 861", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "year": 1927, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "174 Ark. 618", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8723415 ], "year": 1927, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/174/0618-01" ] }, { "cite": "267 Ark. 27", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1719874 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/267/0027-01" ] }, { "cite": "289 Ark. 348", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1875358 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/289/0348-01" ] }, { "cite": "233 Ark. 900", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1691639 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1961, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/233/0900-01" ] }, { "cite": "295 Ark. 447", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1893753 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/295/0447-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 383, "char_count": 6236, "ocr_confidence": 0.87, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.809691169799155e-08, "percentile": 0.49660578666941585 }, "sha256": "a50e0d865af3957db644881da8272b6139a74fa539651391662d8391921e5783", "simhash": "1:8f975ee06c9a1eda", "word_count": 1003 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:23:07.951222+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Hickman and Turner, JJ., not participating." ], "parties": [ "ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION v. Bessie W. COFFELT and Kenneth C. Coffelt" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Tom Glaze, Justice.\nThis appeal is a sequel to our decision in Arkansas State Highway Comm\u2019n v. Munson, 295 Ark. 447, 749 S.W.2d 317 (1988), where we refused the Commission\u2019s request for a writ of prohibition against a Pulaski County Chancery Court\u2019s order staying the Commission from collecting a prior judgment it obtained against the Coffelts in a Pulaski County Circuit Court in November 1985. Following our decision, the chancery court made its stay permanent upon finding the circuit court\u2019s earlier judgment was void as a taking of the Coffelts\u2019 property without compensation in violation of the Arkansas and United States Constitutions.\nThe Commission argues the chancery court erred in finding the circuit court\u2019s judgment was void. It contends further that the doctrine of res judicata barred the Coffelts\u2019 subsequent action in chancery court.\nThe parties agree that an erroneous judgment subject to direct attack does not impair its effect as res judicata; a void judgment, however, amounts to nothing and has no force as res judicata. See Selig v. Barnett, 233 Ark. 900, 350 S.W.2d 176 (1961); 2 A.C. Freeman, Law of Judgments \u00a7 642 (1925). Thus, the threshold question in this appeal is whether the 1985 circuit court judgment is void since only under such a circumstance were the Coffelts allowed collaterally to attack the circuit court\u2019s judgment. We hold that the circuit court clearly had jurisdiction and was competent to enter the judgment it did against the Coffelts and that the chancery court erred in holding the judgment void.\nFirst, we point out that the 1985 circuit court judgment in issue here was the focus of controversy in Coffelt v. Arkansas Highway Comm\u2019n, 289 Ark. 348, 712 S.W.2d 283 (1986). There the Coffelts sought relief from the circuit court judgment, but we upheld the judgment by summarily affirming the appeal from that judgment pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 9(e)(2). Next, we note that it is well settled that a judgment on first appeal is conclusive as to every question of law or fact that was actually decided, or could have been decided, at that time. May v. May, 267 Ark. 27, 589 S.W.2d 8 (1979). Nevertheless, while the Coffelts do not question such legal authority, they still maintain that the circuit court\u2019s judgment in question here is facially void and open to attack because the judgment reflects the jury found for the Coffelts but awarded no damages for the Commission\u2019s taking of their property. As a consequence, the Coffelts contend the circuit court judgment was not merely erroneous and subject to direct appeal, but instead was void and subject to collateral attack. In support of this argument, the Coffelts cite Greene County v. Knight, 174 Ark. 618, 297 S.W. 861 (1927) and Independence County v. Lester, 173 Ark. 796, 293 S.W. 743 (1927).\nThe Knight case is clearly distinguishable because the lower court\u2019s condemnation order there was made without notice to the landowners and was unquestionably void. In the present case, the Commission performed its statutory duties and the Coffelts undisputedly were apprised and notified of the state\u2019s condemnation proceedings.\nThe Lester case involved a county court\u2019s taking of a landowner\u2019s property but the landowner\u2019s claim for the damages was disallowed because the county revenues had been exhausted and the county was therefore prohibited from paying the claim under restrictions in amendment 11 to the Arkansas Constitution. Under such circumstances, this court held the county court had no power to condemn the landowner\u2019s property and thus the county court\u2019s order to that effect was absolutely void. Although when reviewing the language used in the Lester decision one might question whether the county court\u2019s order could be labeled as merely erroneous rather than void, this court\u2019s decision there was based upon its finding that the county court, under amendment 11, had no authority whatsoever to take the landowner\u2019s property since the county court had no revenues to pay for such a taking. In this context, the court concluded the county court\u2019s order was absolutely void. Again, in the present case, the situation differs since the Commission followed its statutory duties required under Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7\u00a7 27-67-301 to -67-323 (1987) and paid an estimated deposit under \u00a7 27-67-314 (1987) in connection with its taking of the Coffelts\u2019 property. In sum, here the circuit court had jurisdiction of the condemnation proceeding and no showing was made that fraud or collusion was involved. That being so, the judgment was not void.\nFinally, we address the Coffelts\u2019 concern that since the circuit court judgment reflects the Commission took their property without an award of damages, such a verdict was inconsistent and therefore void by its own terms. The Commission counters such an argument, correctly we believe, stating the Coffelts wish to ignore that the jury was correctly instructed concerning the state\u2019s taking of the Coffelts\u2019 property and that the jury could have accepted the Commission\u2019s expert testimony that no damages resulted from the taking. Such damages issues could well have been addressed in the Coffelts\u2019 direct appeal from the circuit court\u2019s 1985 judgment and a determination could have been made regarding the correctness of the jury\u2019s acceptance of the Commission\u2019s evidence on this issue. As previously mentioned, we disposed of this and other issues raised (or which could have been raised) when we summarily affirmed the Coffelts\u2019 appeal from the circuit court\u2019s judgment in 1985.\nFor the foregoing reasons, we reverse and dismiss the chancery court\u2019s decision holding the Pulaski County Circuit judgment void.\nHickman and Turner, JJ., not participating.\nActually, the judgment was entered against Mrs. Coffelt, but because Mr. Coffelt has since become a party to this litigation, our reference will include both for ease of writing this opinion.", "type": "majority", "author": "Tom Glaze, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Robert L. Wilson and Philip N. Gowen, for appellant.", "Mike Wilson and Kenneth Coffelt, for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION v. Bessie W. COFFELT and Kenneth C. Coffelt\n89-160\n782 S.W.2d 45\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered January 8, 1990\n[Rehearing denied February 5, 1990.]\nRobert L. Wilson and Philip N. Gowen, for appellant.\nMike Wilson and Kenneth Coffelt, for appellees.\nHickman, J., not participating." }, "file_name": "0112-01", "first_page_order": 142, "last_page_order": 145 }