Understanding a Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement in Arkansas

Through the filing of a motion to enforce judgment in Arkansas state court civil proceedings, the prevailing party seeks the court's assistance in enforcing compliance, which may encompass various forms of relief such as monetary damages, specific performance, or injunctive relief, contingent upon the nature of the original judgment.

The initiation of this procedural step triggers a judicial review wherein the court assesses the merits of the motion and may issue appropriate orders or directives to ensure the implementation of the original judgment. Ultimately, the overarching goal of the motion to enforce judgment in Arkansas is to uphold the sanctity of court-ordered judgments, safeguard the rights of prevailing parties, and maintain the integrity of the state's civil litigation process.

Requirements for Enforcement of Settlement

“Courts will enforce contracts of settlement if they are not in contravention of law.” (McCoy Farms, Inc. v. J & M McKee, 263 Ark. 20, 563 S.W.2d 409 [1978].)

The essential elements of a contract include:

1. competent parties,
2. subject matter,
3. legal consideration,
4. mutual agreement, and
5. mutual obligations.

(Billingsley v. Benton NWA Props., LLC, 2015 Ark. 291, 5-6 [Ark. 2015] citing Ward v. Williams, 354 Ark. 168, 118 S.W.3d 513 [2003].)

“We keep in mind two legal principles in determining whether a valid contract was entered into:

1. a court cannot make a contract for the parties but can only construe and enforce the contract that they have made; and if there is no meeting of the minds, there is no contract; and
2. it is well settled that in order to make a contract there must be a meeting of the minds as to all terms, using objective indicators.

(Billingsley v. Benton NWA Props., LLC, 2015 Ark. 291, 5-6 [Ark. 2015] citing Alltel Corp. v. Sumner, 360 Ark. 573, 203 S.W.3d 77 [2005].)

“Whether or not there is a meeting of the minds is an issue of fact, and we do not reverse a circuit court's fact-finding unless it is clearly erroneous. (DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Smelser, 375 Ark. 216, 289 S.W.3d 266 [2008].) “A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” (Id.)

List of Cases Discussing Motions to Enforce Settlement Agreements

• Terra Land Servs., Inc. v. McIntyre, 572 S.W.3d 424 (Ark. Ct. App. 2019)
• Billingsley v. Benton NWA Props., LLC, 2014 Ark. 65 (Ark. 2014)
• DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Smelser, 289 S.W.3d 466 (Ark. 2008)
• Riley v. First State Bank, 2024 Ark. App. 142 (Ark. Ct. App. 2024)
• Stephens Prod. Co. v. Blackard, 2013 Ark. App. 289 (Ark. Ct. App. 2013)

Current as of March 01, 2024 | Updated by Trellis Law Content Team

The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only. Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information and is subject to change without notice.