When an order is made in favor of a person who is not a party to the action, he may enforce obedience to the order by the same process as if he were a party; and, when obedience to an order may be lawfully enforced against a person who is not a party, he is liable to the same process for enforcing obedience to the order as if he were a party.
Rule 71.Process in Behalf of and Against Persons Not Parties
Not amended since adoption on record · Last verified July 13, 2026
In one sentenceRule 71 lets a non-party enforce a court order made in that person's favor, and lets a court enforce an order against a non-party who is lawfully bound by it, using the same enforcement process available to actual parties.
Full Text of Rule 71
Reporter's Notes
Reporter’s Notes to Rule 71: 1. Rule 71 is identical to FRCP 71. The Federal Rule has remained unchanged since its adoption and has provoked little controversy. It does not attempt to say when an order can be made in favor of or against a person not a party. Rather it merely provides that when this can be done, non-parties have recourse to, and are subject to, process in the same manner as parties. Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, Section 3031. 2. Prior Arkansas law contained no comparable provision. Normally, under prior law, a judgment, order or decree was ineffective against a person not a party to the action. Superseded Ark. Stat. Ann. § 29-107 (Repl. 1962). There are situations, however, where even without specific statutory authority, the Arkansas courts have permitted a non-party to enforce an order or to enforce an order against a non-party, i.e., where an assignee of a purchaser at a judicial sale obtains a writ of assistance or where an injunction is enforced against a non-party who has knowledge of the provisions of the order. Hudkins v. Ark. State Bd. of Optometry, 208 Ark. 577, 187 S.W.2d 538(1945); Hickinbotham v. Williams, 228 Ark. 46, 305 S.W.2d 841 (1957).
Plain-English Summary
Most of the time, a judgment or order binds only the parties who litigated the case. But courts sometimes issue orders that benefit, or bind, people who never appeared in the action at all. Rule 71 does not decide when that can happen -- that question is answered elsewhere, by the substantive law governing the particular order. What Rule 71 supplies is the procedural bridge: once an order in favor of or against a non-party is proper, that non-party can use, or be reached by, the same enforcement process a party would use.
On the favorable side, a person who is not a party but who benefits from an order can enforce it as though they had been a party all along, without needing to intervene in the case or file a separate action first. On the binding side, a person who is not a party but who is lawfully subject to an order -- someone who, for example, had notice of an injunction's terms and is positioned to interfere with it -- can be reached by the same enforcement process used against parties, including contempt or a writ compelling compliance.
Because Rule 71 is confined to mechanics, it leaves untouched the traditional limits on when a judgment can reach beyond the litigants. A non-party's ability to invoke it, or a court's ability to enforce an order against a non-party under it, still depends on whatever substantive doctrine -- assignment, notice of an injunction, or similar grounds -- makes that order proper as to the non-party in the first place.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Rule 71 let a court bind anyone it wants who is not a party?
No. The rule does not create authority to bind non-parties; it only supplies the enforcement process once some other legal basis makes an order proper as to a person who is not a party to the case.
How does a non-party enforce an order made in that person's favor?
The same way a party would -- through the normal process for enforcing orders, such as a motion or writ -- without first having to intervene in the case or bring a separate lawsuit.
Can someone who was never a party be held in contempt for violating a court order?
Yes, if that person is lawfully subject to the order under governing law -- for example, someone with notice of an injunction's terms who acts to defeat it. Rule 71 makes the same enforcement tools available against that person as against a party.
What is an example of a non-party enforcing an order under this rule?
An assignee of a purchaser at a judicial sale obtaining a writ of assistance to secure possession, even though the assignee was not a party to the underlying action.
Why does this rule exist if it doesn't define who can be bound?
Because the mechanics of enforcement -- how a writ issues, how contempt is pursued -- need a clear procedural home. Rule 71 provides that home so non-parties are not left without a defined process once some other rule of law makes an order enforceable by or against them.
Source & verification. Rule text, Reporter's Notes, and amendment
history are reproduced verbatim from the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure, prescribed by
the Arkansas Supreme Court. The plain-English summary is original and written by us.
Last verified July 13, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: non-party enforcement of court orderprocess against non-partiesthird party bound by injunctionenforcing order in favor of non-partywrit of assistance non-party