{ "id": 3665390, "name": "Carlos SOLIS v. STATE of Arkansas", "name_abbreviation": "Solis v. State", "decision_date": "2008-04-17", "docket_number": "07-561", "first_page": "255", "last_page": "257", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "373 Ark. 255" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "283 S.W.3d 190" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "371 Ark. 590", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 3490377 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2007, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/371/0590-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 265, "char_count": 4174, "ocr_confidence": 0.796, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.10589671444165277 }, "sha256": "f978d6adca31ae45a2e0ffe96f7bcef5ce46433998f69430734eb6668bb6c7df", "simhash": "1:1b5f5f7338535768", "word_count": 670 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:24:36.449526+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Carlos SOLIS v. STATE of Arkansas" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Paul E. Danielson, Justice.\nAppellant Carlos Alexander Solis appeals the circuit court\u2019s order granting a default judgment in favor of appellee State of Arkansas. We affirm the circuit court.\nThe record reveals the following facts. On September 9, 2006, officers of the Bentonville Police Department seized $1,834 in U.S. currency from Solis in connection with his arrest on two counts of delivery of a controlled substance. The prosecuting attorney, on behalf of the State, filed forfeiture proceedings against the $1,834 in U.S. currency on September 12, 2006, and served Solis with a summons and attached complaint on September 19, 2006. The caption of the complaint named the defendant as \u201c$1834.00 U.S. Currency (Carlos Alexander Solis).\u201d The caption of the summons named the defendant as \u201c$1834.00 U.S. Currency.\u201d Under this caption, the summons listed the defendant as \u201cCarlos Alexander Solis.\u201d The text of the summons advised Solis that, in order to avoid a default judgment, he was required to file an answer in writing and in compliance \u201cwith the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure and/or the Arkansas Inferior Court Rules.\u201d The summons also stated that the answer had to be filed within twenty days of service unless Solis was not a resident of Arkansas, in which case the answer had to be filed within thirty days. Furthermore, the summons instructed Solis that if he wanted to be represented by an attorney, he should immediately contact that attorney to file an answer on his behalf.\nOn October 6, 2006, Solis, acting through his attorney, filed an answer to the State\u2019s complaint. Solis\u2019s answer was signed only by his attorney and did not contain a verification by Solis. On November 6, 2006, the State filed a motion for default judgment, arguing that it was entitled to a default judgment because Solis\u2019s answer was not verified by Solis\u2019s signature as required by Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-64-505(g)(4) (Supp. 2005). The State\u2019s motion additionally responded to Solis\u2019s objection to discovery and served as an alternative motion to compel. On November 6, 2006, Solis filed a reply. The circuit court granted a default judgment to the State on February 20, 2007.\nSolis raises several arguments on appeal. First, Solis argues that a verification is completed by an attorney\u2019s signature, and no further verification is required under section 5-64-505(g)(4) or under the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. Next, Solis contends that if personal verification of his answer was required by statute, then the summons was deficient, because it did not inform him of the verification requirement. He further claims his summons was deficient because it named the $1,834 in U.S. currency as the defendant in the caption rather than Solis. Solis next reasons that even if his answer was not properly verified, the circuit court erred in granting a default judgment because his answer substantially complied with statutory requirements and was therefore sufficient to avoid a default judgment. For his final point, Solis argues that the Arkansas Constitution clearly vests the power to prescribe the rules of pleading, practice, and procedure in the Arkansas Supreme Court. Because of this, Solis suggests that, to the extent the statute regarding forfeiture proceedings does prescribe additional procedural requirements, it unduly infringes upon the power of the judiciary, thereby violating the separation of powers doctrine.\nThese arguments were all addressed and rejected by this court in Solis v. State, 371 Ark. 590, 269 S.W.3d 352 (2007), in which we affirmed the circuit court\u2019s order of default judgment in favor of the State after the State\u2019s forfeiture of Solis\u2019s 1999 Ford F350 pickup. We reject Solis\u2019s arguments here for the same reasons. See Solis v. State, supra. Therefore, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Paul E. Danielson, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Swindle Law Firm, by: Ken Swindle, for appellant.", "Dustin McDaniel, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Vada Berger, Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee.", "Brian G. Brooks, for amicus curiae Arkansas Trial Lawyers Association." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Carlos SOLIS v. STATE of Arkansas\n07-561\n283 S.W.3d 190\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered April 17, 2008\nSwindle Law Firm, by: Ken Swindle, for appellant.\nDustin McDaniel, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Vada Berger, Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee.\nBrian G. Brooks, for amicus curiae Arkansas Trial Lawyers Association." }, "file_name": "0255-01", "first_page_order": 281, "last_page_order": 283 }