Martin v. Martin

In Martin v. Martin, 241 Ark. 9, 405 S.W.2d 934 (1966), neither appellant nor her attorney appeared at a hearing, and a default judgment was entered. The trial court refused to set the default judgment aside, but the supreme court reversed because there was a misunderstanding between counsel as to the date of the hearing. The supreme court held, "Where an attorney's failure to resist an application for a default judgment is attributable not to any fault on his part but to a misunderstanding between counsel, there is such an unavoidable casualty that the judgment should be vacated." 241 Ark. at 10, 405 S.W.2d at 934-35.