Fredondria Shack v. Crown Asset Management, LLC

── Fredondria Shack v. Crown Asset Management, LLC ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas Date: May 13, 2026 Category: General Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 296 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CV-25-402 FREDONDRIA SHACK Opinion Delivered May 13, 2026 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, SIXTH V. DIVISION [NO. 60CV-24-10354] CROWN ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC APPELLEE HONORABLE TIMOTHY DAVIS FOX, JUDGE REVERSED AND REMANDED ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Judge This is an appeal from the Pulaski County Circuit Court’s default judgment entered in favor of appellee Crown Asset Management, LLC, against the appellant Fredondria Shack. Shack argues on appeal that the default judgment is void for insufficient service of process because the affidavit of service failed to set forth that the process server announced his purpose before leaving the summons and complaint on her door. We agree and reverse and remand for the default judgment to be vacated. I. Background Facts On November 19, 2024, the appellee filed a complaint against Shack for breaching a consumer loan contract. Subsequently, on January 29, 2025, the appellee filed a proof of service that stated Shack was served via a process server pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(1)(A). The proof of service checked the box with the preprinted language stating, “After making my purpose to deliver the summons and complaint clear, . . . I left the summons and complaint in the close proximity of the defendant.” The process server’s factual description of service stated as follows: Walked up to the door, looked in the window, a little African American boy about 7 or 8 was setting on the couch. I knocked on the door. He calls for his mother. She doesn’t come. He calls for her again she comes to the living room and peaks around the corner and called for him to come back to that part of the house. Refuses to answer door. I posted the paperwork and left a message on her ring doorbell that I saw her and she had been served. That I had left the paperwork on her door. The appellee filed its motion for a default judgment on March 5, 2025, asserting that Shack failed to file an answer to the complaint despite service. Shack timely opposed the motion, arguing that service of process was invalid under Rule 4(1)(f)(A) of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, Shack maintained that the proof of service (1) failed to show that the process server made his or her purpose clear before allegedly leaving the documents and (2) failed to show that she refused to accept service of process. Based upon the pleadings, the circuit court entered the default judgment against Shack on May 31, 2025. Shack filed a timely notice of appeal; this appeal followed. II. Standard of Review When deciding whether a default judgment should have been set aside on the basis of a jurisdictional defect, we review the circuit court’s decision using a de novo standard of review. See Nucor Corp. v. Kilman, 358 Ark. 107, 186 S.W.3d 720 (2004); Self v. Hustead, 2017 Ark. App. 339, 525 S.W.3d 33. Arkansas law requires valid service of process before a court 2 can acquire jurisdiction over a defendant. Morgan v. Big Creek Farms of Hickory Flat, Inc., 2016 Ark. App. 121, 488 S.W.3d 535. III. Discussion Shack argues that the default judgment entered by the circuit court is void because the proc