Judges: STEVE CLARK, Attorney General
Filed Date: 12/29/1989
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The Honorable Jim Hudson Prosecuting Attorney Eighth Judicial District Miller County Courthouse Texarkana, Arkansas 75502
Dear Mr. Hudson:
This is in response to your request for an opinion concerning the fee chargeable by the circuit clerk to persons filing foreign judgments. Specifically, you ask for a clarification of Opinion No.
Act 501 adopted the "Revised Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act" and provides that the fee for filing a foreign judgment shall be the same as the fee that would be paid for the filing of a civil action. Opinion No.
Act 534 of 1989 amends A.C.A.
The uniform fees to be charged by the recorders in the various counties in the state shall be as follows:
(1) For recording deeds, deeds of trust, mortgages, release deeds, powers of attorney, and other recordable instruments, except as otherwise prescribed in this section, four dollars ($4.00) for one (1) page, one side only, and two dollars ($2.00) for each additional page.
(2) For filing or recording all instruments other than those prescribed in subdivision (1) of this section which are normally placed on record in the recorder's office:
* * *
E. Foreign judgments . . . . . . . . . . $6.00
The statute above sets the fees chargeable by recorders. The circuit clerk is the recorder. SEE A.C.A.
Ordinarily, when faced with two conflicting acts passed at the same session of the legislature, a court must construe them together, try to reconcile them, and if possible, give effect to both. EX PARTE TRAPNALL,
It is, in my opinion, impossible to reconcile these two provisions. Both set the fee for the filing of a foreign judgment with the circuit clerk. The only conceivable way to construe them together is to conclude that the legislature intended the imposition of both fees. It is my opinion that this conclusion would not represent the legislative intent. Therefore, we must apply the general rule that the last provision enacted governs, unless we can discern a contrary legislative intent.
Act 501, (setting the fee as that which would be paid for the filing of a civil action) was signed into law by the Governor on March 13, 1989, and became effective upon that signature by virtue of its emergency clause. Act 534 of 1989, setting the fee at six dollars, was signed into law by the Governor on March 14, 1989 and became effective on that date by virtue of its emergency clause. Additionally, at the 3rd Extraordinary Session of 1989, the General Assembly passed Senate Bill 70, (Act 74 of 1989 (3rd Ex. Sess.)), which was signed by the Governor on November 16, 1989, becoming effective on that date by virtue of its emergency clause. This act amends Act 501, and restates Section 5 of that act which sets the fee at the amount that would be paid for the filing of a civil action. Accordingly, Section 5 of Act 504, as amended by Act 74 of the Third Extraordinary Session of 1989, is the last legislative pronouncement on the topic. We can find no satisfying evidence of a legislative intent to have one fee prevail over the other. The general rule is that when two statutes conflict, the latter in time controls. STATE v. LAWRENCE,
Given the above, it is my opinion, that the fee in Arkansas for filing a foreign judgment with the circuit clerk is the same fee that would be paid for the filing of a civil action. Absent a legislative clarification, we are confined to this opinion.
The foregoing opinion, which I hereby approve, was prepared by Assistant Attorney General Elana L. Cunningham.
Attachment: Opinion No.