Reporter’s Notes to Rule 59: 1. Rule 59 represents a combination of the provisions found in FRCP 59 and features of prior Arkansas law as codified in superseded Ark. Stat. Ann. §§ 27-1901, et seq. (Repl. 1962). This rule will apply to both legal and equitable causes and in equity court replaces the bill of review which is abolished in Rule 60.

2. FRCP 59 does not define the grounds upon which new trials may be granted. Instead, it simply incorporates by reference those grounds traditionally recognized by the federal courts. Rather than refer to a body of law by reference, Section (a) of this rule specifies the grounds upon which a new trial may be granted. These grounds are lifted from superseded Ark. Stat. Ann. § 27-1901 (Repl. 1962). Thus, no changes are effected in Arkansas law by Section (a). The final sentence of FRCP 59(a) is made a part of this rule so as to permit the granting of similar relief in cases tried without a jury, whether the claims be legal or equitable. This is implicit in superseded Ark. Stat. Ann. § 27-1901 (Repl. 1962), but it is expressly made a part of Rule 59.

3. Section (b) marks a significant departure from prior Arkansas practice. Under this section, a motion for new trial must be filed within ten days after entry or filing of the judgment. Under prior Arkansas law, as codified in superseded Ark. Stat. Ann. § 27-1904 (Repl. 1962), such a motion had to be filed within fifteen days following the verdict or decision, regardless of when the formal judgment or decree was actually filed. Henderson v. Skerczak, 247 Ark. 446, 446 S.W.2d 243 (1969); Peek v. Meadors, 255 Ark. 347, 500 S.W.2d 333 (1973).

4. Section (c) is not found in FRCP 59 but is practically identical to superseded Ark. Stat. Ann. § 27-1905 (Repl. 1962). The purpose of this provision is to ensure that a motion based upon the grounds set forth in Section (a)(2) and (a)(3) and (a)(7), is supported by affidavit in order to avoid (prevent) groundless or baseless motions from being filed.

5. Section (d) is taken from Section (c) of FRCP 59. The word “served” has been changed to “filed” in keeping with the overall scheme of these rules.

6. Section (e) is identical to Section (d) of FRCP 59. There was no specific provision under prior Arkansas law which gave the trial court the authority to order a new trial on its own initiative although the court may have had the inherent power to do so.

7. Section (f) is identical to FRCP 59(e). There was no comparable provision under prior Arkansas law and its effect is to place motions under Rule 59(f) on the same footing, timewise, with motions for new trials.

Addition to Reporter’s Notes, 1982 Amendment: The word “clearly” was added to Rule 59(a)(6).

Addition to Reporter’s Notes, 1983 Amendment: Rule 59(f) is deleted. The time within which a trial court may modify, set aside or vacate judgment appears in Rule 60(b).

Addition to Reporter’s Notes, 1984 Amendments: Rule 59(f) is added to reinstate the principle of superseded Ark. Stat. Ann. § 27-2127.5 (Repl. 1962). The matter of the necessity of a motion for new trial to preserve error for appeal had not been addressed in these rules.

Addition to Reporter’s Notes, 1994 Amendment: The first sentence of subdivision (a) is amended by substituting the word “claim” for the word “issues.” The amendment is intended to reflect case law prohibiting a partial new trial on the issue of damages (or the issue of liability), on the theory that a jury’s verdict cannot be divided by the court. E.g., Smith v. Walt Bennett Ford, 314 Ark. 591, 864 S.W.2d 817 (1993). As amended, subdivision (a) does not allow a partial new trial limited to a given issue. However, it expressly authorizes, in cases involving multiple parties or multiple claims, a partial new trial with respect to a single party or single claim.

Addition to Reporter’s Notes, 1999 Amendment: Subdivision (b) has to amended by adding a new second sentence that effectively overturns Benedict v. National Bank of Commerce, 329 Ark. 590, 951 S.W.2d 562 (1997), which held that a motion for new trial filed before entry of judgment is ineffective. As amended, the rule reflects the practice in the federal courts. The new third sentence provides that a motion for new trial not ruled on by the court within 30 days of its filing (or within 30 days of the date it is treated as filed) is “deemed denied as of the 30th day.” This provision also appears in Rule 4(b)(1) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure-Civil but was added here as a reminder to counsel.

In addition, the title of the rule has been modified by striking the words “amendment of judgments.” A provision in the original version of the rule dealing with this issue was deleted in 1983. See Addition to Reporter’s Notes, 1983 Amendment.

Addition to Reporter’s Notes, 2003 Amendment: Subdivision (f) has been rewritten to reflect the holding in Stacks v. Jones, 323 Ark. 643, 916 S.W.2d 120 (1996).