## Facts

- Johnny and Mary Gorman leased a house from Russell Ratliff under a written lease beginning November 30, 1984.
- The Gormans became delinquent on rent, and Ratliff asked them to vacate.
- While the Gormans were away, Ratliff entered the house and removed all of their personal property, including basic household items and personal papers, and placed it in storage.
- The lease purported to allow Ratliff, upon nonpayment, to enter, store personal property left on the premises, and sell it after 30 days to satisfy unpaid rent.
- The parties stipulated that Ratliff had possession of the premises and the Gormans’ property from April 23, 1985 forward.
- No court order authorized Ratliff to take possession of the premises or the Gormans’ personal property.
- The trial court upheld Ratliff’s actions as “peaceable repossession” under the lease, recognized a lien on the personal property, denied the tenants’ claims, and awarded Ratliff damages for unpaid rent and related expenses.

## Issues

1. Whether Arkansas’s Forcible Entry and Detainer (FED) statutes require a landlord to use judicial process to regain possession, barring self-help repossession based on a lease clause.
2. Whether lease provisions authorizing a landlord to enter, seize, store, and sell a tenant’s personal property upon nonpayment are unenforceable as contrary to the FED statutory scheme and public policy.

## Decision

- The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- The court held Ratliff’s entry and removal of the Gormans’ property, and his retention of possession without a court order, fell within conduct prohibited by the FED statutes.
- The court rejected enforcement of the lease’s self-help provisions to justify dispossession of the tenants and seizure of their property.

## Legal Principles

- Arkansas’s FED statutes supply the mandatory procedure for a landlord to recover possession from a tenant in these circumstances.
- A landlord may not avoid the FED process through contractual self-help provisions permitting entry and dispossession without judicial authorization.
- Lease terms that conflict with the FED statutory protections are void as against public policy and cannot validate a landlord’s unilateral seizure or detention of tenant property.

## Conclusion

The court held that landlords must use the FED statutory process to regain possession and cannot rely on lease clauses to justify self-help entry, eviction, or seizure and disposition of a tenant’s personal property without judicial process.


Gorman v. Ratliff, 712 S.W.2d 888 (Ark. 1986)