The Arkansas Court of Appeals has reversed a lower court's decision that dismissed BKMJ, Inc.'s petition to revive a judgment against Ira Elliot Glasser. This ruling, delivered on September 23, 2026, affects BKMJ, which sought to enforce a default judgment from 2014. The case highlights the complexities of legal judgments and the procedures for reviving them.
BKMJ, Inc. filed a complaint against Glasser in 2014, alleging that he defaulted on a promissory note. The company claimed breach of contract, conversion, and fraud. The dispute began when Glasser challenged the court's jurisdiction through his Texas attorney, who was not licensed to practice in Arkansas. This legal maneuvering set the stage for the ensuing courtroom battles.
In the early stages of the case, BKMJ moved for a default judgment, arguing that Glasser had failed to respond to the complaint in a timely manner. The circuit court granted BKMJ a default judgment in December 2014, awarding them $20,036, plus interest and attorney’s fees. However, the case took a turn when both parties agreed to dismiss all pending causes of action in August 2015, leading to confusion about the status of the default judgment.
Fast forward to December 2024, BKMJ filed a petition for a writ of scire facias, seeking to revive the default judgment, claiming that Glasser had not made any payments. Glasser countered by filing a motion to dismiss, arguing that the default judgment was not a final order and that the earlier dismissal precluded any further litigation.
On March 31, 2025, the circuit court dismissed BKMJ's petition, stating that the default judgment was not final and that the dismissal order resolved all claims. BKMJ appealed this decision, arguing that the court erred in its interpretation of the dismissal order.
The Arkansas Court of Appeals reviewed the case and concluded that the circuit court made an error. The court ruled that a default judgment is just as binding as any judgment entered after a full trial. The opinion, written by Judge Raymond R. Abramson, highlighted that the default judgment was entered before the dismissal order and that the dismissal only resolved pending causes of action.
The court stated, "the dismissal order did not set aside the default judgment and did not deprive the court of jurisdiction to enforce the judgment."
This ruling is significant as it clarifies the enforceability of default judgments in Arkansas. The court's decision allows BKMJ to move forward with its efforts to revive the judgment against Glasser. The ruling emphasizes that courts must respect the binding nature of default judgments, even when other claims are dismissed.
Looking ahead, this ruling may influence how similar cases are handled in Arkansas. It reinforces the principle that a default judgment remains enforceable unless explicitly set aside. This decision could impact other businesses and individuals seeking to enforce judgments against parties who may attempt to evade their legal obligations.
As for what’s next, BKMJ can now proceed with its petition to revive the judgment. There is no indication in the court filing that Glasser plans to appeal this ruling. However, the legal landscape could change if new developments arise.