Judges: STEVE CLARK, Attorney General
Filed Date: 2/20/1990
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The Honorable Jim Hudson Prosecuting Attorney Miller County Courthouse Texarkana, AR 75502
Dear Mr. Hudson:
This is in response to Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Brent Haltom's request for an opinion on the following questions with regard to the registered abstracter provisions of A.C.A.
1. What must a person do to become a registered abstracter in the State of Arkansas? 2. Can a person be a registered abstracter without working for an abstract plant?
A "registered abstracter" is defined under A.C.A.
(a) Any person desiring to become a registered abstracter under this chapter shall make application to the board for registration.
(b) The application shall be in a form prepared by the board and shall contain such information as may be necessary to assist the board in registration and to determine if the applicant is of good moral character.
(c) Except as provided in subsection (e) of this section, each application shall be accompanied by an examination fee in the sum of twenty-five dollars ($25.00).
(d) Thereupon the board shall notify the applicant of the time and place of the next scheduled examination and notice of the examination shall be given to the applicant by mail.
(e) Any person authorized to practice law in the state shall be issued a certificate of registration upon application, without examination and payment of fee.
With regard, therefore, to persons authorized to practice law in Arkansas, a certificate of registration is issued upon application, without examination and payment of the fee. Others must comply with
A review of information supplied by the Board also indicates that the Board has, through rule or regulation, imposed a one year abstracting experience requirement as a condition to obtaining an individual license (certificate of registration). The Board has the authority, under A.C.A. 17-11-203(b), to "adopt rules and regulations as it shall deem necessary for the proper administration of its powers and duties and the carrying out of the purposes of this chapter." It is significant to note in this regard that the board must be satisfied, in accordance with
The one year experience requirement has apparently been in place for some time. The Board's long-standing interpretation of these statutory provisions must be given consideration and will not be disregarded by a court unless clearly wrong. See, e.g., Morris v. Torch Club,
We cannot conclude, following the above precepts, that the Board's action in this instance in imposing a one year experience requirement is "clearly wrong." This requirement is in place and forms a part of the current certificate of registration procedure.
The answer to your second question is, in my opinion, "no." Section
The foregoing opinion, which I hereby approve, was prepared by Assistant Attorney General Elisabeth A. Walker.
cc: Mr. Brent Haltom Deputy Prosecuting Attorney