Ark. R. Civ. P. 13
Reporter’s Notes to Rule 13: 1. With the exception of one minor wording change, Sections (a) and (b) are otherwise identical to FRCP 13(a) and (b). The word “serving” found in the Federal Rule is omitted and the word “filing” is substituted therefor. These sections abolish the strict compulsory counterclaim rule in Arkansas as codified in superseded Ark. Stat. Ann. § 27-1121 (Repl. 1962). Under this and the Federal Rule, the only counterclaims which are compulsory are those which arise out of the same transaction or occurrence. Otherwise, a counterclaim is permissive.
2. Section (c) is identical to FRCP 13(c) and does not change Arkansas law.
3. Section (d) of the Federal Rule is eliminated inasmuch as these rules cannot enlarge one’s right to assert a counterclaim against the United States or any officer or agent thereof.
4. Section (d) is a revision of FRCP 13(e) and recognizes those rare occasions where a counterclaim arises after pleadings are served.
5. Section (e) is a revision of FRCP 13(f). Under the Federal Rule, delay in asserting a counterclaim may be fatal to one’s right to assert such claim. Frank Adam Electric Co. v. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co., 146 F. 2d 165 (C.C.A. 8t h, 1945). This section follows superseded Ark. Stat. Ann. § 27-1160 (Supp. 1975), by permitting a counterclaim to be asserted by amended pleading as any other amendment, subject to the conditions of Rule 15.
6. Section (e) is identical to FRCP 13(g). It follows the intent of superseded Ark. Stat. Ann. § 27-1134.1 (Supp. 1975) by making such claims permissive rather than mandatory.
7. Section (g) follows FRCP 13(h) by allowing other parties to be brought in under the conditions of Rules 19 and 20. This is essentially what was permitted under superseded Ark. Stat. Ann. § 27-1134.2 (Supp. 1975).
8. Rule 42(b) gives the court discretion to grant separate trials where two or more competing claims would otherwise have to be tried together. Section (h) of Rule 13, which is identical to Section (i) of the Federal Rule, answers any possible argument that the claim tried last would be barred by res judicata by reason of the first claim having been reduced to judgment or dismissed.
Addition to Reporter’s Note, 1990 Amendment: The amendment deletes the last sentence of subdivision (c), which provided that “[i]n the event the amount asserted in the counterclaim exceeds the monetary jurisdiction of the court in which it is filed, the matter shall be transferred to a court of competent jurisdiction to hear the full extent of the claim and counterclaim.” This provision created confusion, since the state courts of general jurisdiction do not have monetary jurisdictional limits. While inferior courts have such limits, counterclaims in those courts are governed by Rule 7 of the Inferior Court Rules [now District Court Rules].