by the statute of limitations or one year, whichever is longer. See Ark. Code Ann. § 16-56-126 (1987); Elzea v. Perry, 340 Ark. 588, 12 S.W.3d 213 (2000). Pentz filed his present complaint within the time allowed by the statute of limitations. When a complaint is filed subsequent to a nonsuit of the same complaint, it is well established under Arkansas law that, even though the prior complaint may have been a compulsory counterclaim to a claim brought within the original suit, it is not barred by res judicata. Our supreme court has clearly held that the nonsuiting of a complaint or a counterclaim prevents the application of res judicata due to the absolute right of a party to nonsuit that is granted under Ark. R. Civ. P. 41. See Lemon v. Laws, 305 Ark. 143, 806 S.W.2d 1 (1991) (<HOLDING>); Linn v. NationsBank, 341 Ark. 57, 14 S.W.3d
holding that insured who brought third party action against insurer could recover costs incurred in defending insurers counterclaim for declaratory relief since the insureds posture in the counterclaim was that of a defendant holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in considering merits of state law counterclaim that formed part of the same case as federal counterclaim even though court had dismissed federal counterclaim quoting 28 usc  1367a holding that lessees fraud in the inducement claim should have been pleaded as a compulsory counterclaim where lessors original claim was for breach of the lease holding that a nonsuited malpractice claim which would be a compulsory counterclaim to the claim for attorneys fees which was presented as a counterclaim could be filed again without res judicata consequences holding that a cross claim or counterclaim for affirmative relief must be filed before the statute of limitations expires because a claim is not stripped of its character as an independent action by acquiring the label counterclaim