Concerning The Termination Of An Oral Lease Of Farmlands; And To Amend The Law Concerning Notice Of Termination.
Summary
HB1562 amends Arkansas law governing the termination of oral farmland leases. Under current law, a landowner who rents or leases farmland under an oral agreement may choose not to renew the lease for the next calendar year by giving written notice by certified mail to the renter or lessee on or before June 30. The bill keeps the June 30 deadline but broadens the permitted methods of service for that notice.
Specifically, the bill replaces the requirement that notice be sent by certified mail with any method of service allowed under Rule 4 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. This change gives landowners more flexibility in how they deliver nonrenewal notices while preserving the requirement that the tenant receive written notice by the statutory deadline. The bill applies to oral rental or lease agreements for farmland and does not alter the underlying ability of either party to enter into such agreements.
Impact
The bill directly amends Arkansas Code § 18-16-105, changing the notice procedure for nonrenewal of oral farmland leases. It affects farmland owners, tenants, and agricultural lease arrangements by expanding acceptable service methods for termination notices while leaving the June 30 notice deadline intact. The practical effect is to make notice delivery less dependent on certified mail and more consistent with civil procedure service options.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It passed the House by a vote of 95-0 and the Senate by a vote of 34-0, indicating unanimous approval in both chambers. No committee transcript or recorded debate was provided, and the voting history suggests general agreement that the change was procedural rather than substantive.
Contention
There is little evidence of significant opposition. The only likely point of discussion would be whether expanding service methods beyond certified mail could create uncertainty about proof of notice or receipt, but the bill preserves a formal service requirement by tying notice to Rule 4 methods. Because the measure passed unanimously, any concerns were not strong enough to generate recorded dissent.