Hiob, LLC, and Yellow Comb, LLC v. Michael Higgins

2024 Ark. App. 504, 700 S.W.3d 774
Court of Appeals of Arkansas·Decided October 23, 2024·Published

Opinion

Cite as 2024 Ark. App. 504 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II

No. CV-23-261

HIOB, LLC, AND YELLOW COMB, LLC Opinion Delivered October 23, 2024

APPELLANTS

APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FIFTH V. DIVISION [NO. 60CV-19-8538]

MICHAEL HIGGINS APPELLEE HONORABLE WENDELL GRIFFEN, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Judge

This is an appeal from the November 4, 2022 order of the Pulaski County Circuit Court that vacated a default judgment entered on February 25, 2020, and the deemed denial of the motion to alter or amend that order filed by appellants HIOB, LLC (“HIOB”), and Yellow Comb, LLC (“Yellow Comb”) (HIOB and Yellow Comb sometimes referred to collectively herein as “appellants”). Appellants raise multiple issues in support of their argument that we should reverse the November 4, 2022 order and reinstate the default judgment because the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to vacate the earlier default judgment. We affirm.

I. Facts and Procedural History

Appellants filed suit against appellee Michael Higgins on November 27, 2019, because of his failure to pay two promissory notes that were secured by inventory and a personal guarantee. The complaint sounded in breach of contract, demanded possession of the secured collateral, and pled specifically the amounts owed. Appellants sought a personal monetary judgment against Higgins and an in rem judgment against the property.

An affidavit of service by a process server showing service on Higgins was filed along with a copy of the summons, but Higgins filed no answer. Appellants filed their motion for default judgment on January 10, 2020, and the circuit court entered default judgment on February 25. Higgins did not file any postjudgment motions at that time or a notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4 of the Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure–Civil (2023).

After two years of appellants’ attempts to execute on the default judgment, on April 28, 2022, for the first time, Higgins moved to dismiss the case for lack of standing, asserting that the charter of Yellow Comb had been revoked on January 1, 2019, and that HIOB did not become chartered by the Arkansas Secretary of State until November 25, 2020, a year after they had filed their complaint against him on November 27, 2019.

On May 4, Higgins filed a motion to set aside default judgment for lack of standing that, he asserted, was based on Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(4) (2023) in that “[appellants] misrepresented to the Court that they were entities in existence in Arkansas with legal standing to file suit. See Complaint Filed November 27, 2019.”

Appellants moved to strike the motion to dismiss, amended motion to dismiss, and motion to set aside judgment or, alternatively, a response to each. Appellants argued that

Higgins’s reliance on Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(4) was misplaced because subsection (c) states that “other than a default judgment . . . the court shall have the power . . . to vacate. . . [a] judgment,” noting that the proper rule would have been Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c) (2023); however, they claimed it is inapplicable because Higgins’s motions did not provide a meritorious defense required under Rule 55(c), and because the circuit court had jurisdiction when it issued the default judgment, it was not void. Appellants countered that they were not transacting business pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 4-27-1501(b) (Repl. 2016); thus, they were not required to have certificates of authority from the Arkansas Secretary of State’s Office as excepted under subsections (b)(7) and (8) in creating or acquiring indebtedness or acquiring indebtedness and security interests. They also noted that the business entities had cured any deficiencies and offered copies of their current registration documents and that the circuit court could stay any proceedings to give an entity the opportunity to do so. Finally, appellants argued that Higgins was barred from seeking a direct attack on the default judgment because he had failed to properly appeal it when it was originally entered.

On November 4, 2022, the morning of the hearing on the motions, Higgins filed an amended motion to dismiss arguing that appellants lacked standing to sue and requesting to set aside the default judgment, for the first time relying on Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c)(2).

At the hearing, appellants argued that because the circuit court had jurisdiction over the parties and authority to enter the default judgment, it was not void and could not be

collaterally attacked. Appellants’ counsel specifically argued that the circuit court did not have authority to set aside the default judgment under either Rule 55 or 60. Regarding the application of Rule 55, counsel argued that the default judgment was not void, Higgins was not arguing it was void, and Higgins had failed to show a required meritorious defense.

Regarding appellants’ argument that they were not transacting business in Arkansas, counsel offered to present witnesses and evidence that appellants were not transacting business in Arkansas when the complaint was filed, but the circuit court did not take testimony or additional evidence. Appellants argued that the corporate entities were currently franchised and that their respective registrations should be given retroactive effect.

Higgins’s attorney acknowledged that his previous motions should have been filed under Rule 55 rather than Rule 60, and he explained Higgins’s position that the default judgment is void and could be collaterally attacked at any time.

The same day as the hearing, the circuit court entered its order to set aside the default judgment, relying on Rule 55(c)(2) and Arkansas Code Annotated section 4-27-1501 (Repl. 2016)—the statute requiring the registration of corporations and a certificate of authority if transacting business in Arkansas. The circuit court stated from the bench:

Both plaintiffs in this case filed this lawsuit while neither had a charter to do business.

Both plaintiffs filed these lawsuits as limited liability companies, not as individuals.

A limited liability company cannot file a lawsuit or recover on a lawsuit where it is – has not received a certificate of authority.

Defendant’s motion to set aside the default judgment is granted pursuant to Rule 55(c)(2) and (4) of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted based on the Court’s holding that this lawsuit was void ab initio because neither HIOB nor Yellow Comb had a charter to do business. Limited liability companies cannot commence or maintain litigation in Arkansas when they are not authorized to do business in Arkansas.

The circuit court did not make any findings regarding whether appellants were transacting business and therefore required to be registered. Nor did the circuit court consider whether retroactive registration, which was asserted, applied. The order stated that the complaint and order of default judgment were void and dismissed without prejudice.

On November 14, appellants filed their motion to alter or amend the November 4 order, pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 52 (2023). They argued that they were not transacting business when the complaint was filed, that no proof otherwise had been presented, and that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to alter the default judgment. Higgins disagreed in his response filed on November 28.

Appellants filed their timely notice of appeal on November 25 as well as a supplemental motion to alter or amend on November 29 and a reply to Higgins’s response to their motion to alter or amend on December 5. On December 30, appellants filed an amendment to the notice of appeal to include the deemed denial of their motions to alter or amend the November 4, 2022 order.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Hiob, LLC, and Yellow Comb, LLC v. Michael Higgins, 2024 Ark. App. 504, 700 S.W.3d 774 (Ark. Ct. App. 2024).

2024 Ark. App. 504 (Hiob, LLC, and Yellow Comb, LLC v. Michael Higgins) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Nationwide Insurance Enterprise v. Ibanez
246 S.W.3d 883 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 2007)
FAUSETT & CO. INC. v. Bogard
685 S.W.2d 153 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1985)
HRR Arkansas, Inc. v. River City Contractors, Inc.
87 S.W.3d 232 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 2002)
Nucor Corp. v. Kilman
186 S.W.3d 720 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 2004)