Ark. Code Ann. § 16-110-134 (2026)
Intervention before sale
- Before the sale of any attached property, or before the payment to the plaintiff of the proceeds thereof or of any attached debt, any person may present his or her complaint verified by oath to the court. This complaint shall dispute the validity of the attachment, or state a claim to the property or an interest in, or lien on it under any other attachment, or otherwise, and set forth the facts upon which the claim is founded, and his or her claim shall be investigated.
- A nonresident claimant shall, in such cases, give security for costs.
- The court may hear the proof, may order a reference to a commissioner, or may impanel a jury to inquire into the facts.
- If it is found that the claimant has a title to, a lien on, or any interest in the property, the court shall make such order as may be necessary to protect his or her rights.
- The costs of this proceeding shall be paid by either party, at the discretion of the court.
- Where several attachments are executed on the same property, the court, on the motion of any one (1) of the attaching plaintiffs, may order a reference to a commissioner, to ascertain and report the amounts and priorities of the several attachments.
History. Civil Code, § 257; C. & M. Dig., §§ 544-547; Pope's Dig., §§ 581-584; A.S.A. 1947, § 31-157.
Case Notes
Appeals.
Judgment dismissing petition of intervenor is appealable. Citizens Bank of Mammoth Spring v. Commercial Nat'l Bank, 107 Ark. 142, 155 S.W. 102 (1913).
Evidence.
Where claimants alleged in their interplea that the mortgaged property had been levied on by attachment in a proceeding in which the interplea was filed and they admitted in the progress of the trial that the attached property and that which they claimed was the same, it was held on the trial of the interplea that it was not necessary for the attaching creditor to offer the record of the attachment in evidence in order to show that he had secured a lien on the property. Swofford Bros. Dry-Goods Co. v. Smith-McCord Dry-Goods Co., 85 F. 417 (8th Cir. 1898).
Intervenors.
Where a sheriff has seized property on an attachment exceeding in amount the sum due under the writ and prevented a United States marshal from taking possession under a subsequent writ, the creditor who sued in the federal court could, after judgment sustaining his attachment therein, intervene in the suit in which the sheriff took possession and have distribution according to order of priority of the writs. Goodbar v. Brooks, 57 Ark. 450, 22 S.W. 96 (1893); Rosewater v. Schwab Clothing Co., 58 Ark. 446, 25 S.W. 73 (1894).
Intervenor is not estopped by judgment discharging attachment. De Loach Mill Mfg. Co. v. Little Rock Mill & Elevator Co., 65 Ark. 467, 47 S.W. 118 (1898).
After a court ordered a garnishee to pay over an amount of money to be determined by subsequent events but before actual payment by the garnishee, another party could intervene in order to assert a claim to the fund in question. Lawrence v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 247 Ark. 1125, 449 S.W.2d 695 (1970).
Judgment creditor had standing in its own right to challenge the constitutionality of prejudgment attachments made by another creditor of the same debtor. Springdale Farms, Inc. v. McIlroy Bank & Trust, 281 Ark. 371, 663 S.W.2d 936 (1984), overruled, McCrory v. Johnson, 296 Ark. 231, 755 S.W.2d 566 (1988).
—Junior Creditors.
A junior attaching creditor may intervene in a prior attachment suit and contest his rights with the plaintiff in that suit; the contest of the intervenor cannot be in lieu of the defendants, and he cannot take any advantage of amendable defects in the proceedings nor defend the suit and grounds of attachment, but may object to jurisdictional and other unamendable defects in the proceedings. Sannoner v. Jacobson, 47 Ark. 31, 14 S.W. 458 (1885); Caruth-Byrnes Hdwe. Co. v. Deere, Mansur & Co., 53 Ark. 140, 13 S.W. 517 (1890); Rice v. Dorrian, 57 Ark. 541, 22 S.W. 213 (1893).
A junior attaching creditor may set aside a prior attachment when the suit was not authorized by the plaintiff, and only ratified after his attachment was levied. Caruth-Byrnes Hdwe. Co. v. Deere, Mansur & Co., 53 Ark. 140, 13 S.W. 517 (1890); Davis v. H.B. Claflin Co., 63 Ark. 157, 38 S.W. 662 (1896).
A junior attacher can, for the purpose of protecting his rights in the property attached, dispute the validity of a prior attachment and establish the rights of his own to precedence by showing that the first exists without authority or is not allowed by law. Rice v. Dorrian, 57 Ark. 541, 22 S.W. 213 (1893).
A junior creditor cannot take advantage of irregularities in the proceedings in a prior attachment though constituting good grounds for setting aside the attachment. Glaser v. First Nat'l Bank, 62 Ark. 171, 34 S.W. 1061 (1896).
Pleadings.
The interplea filed under this section must be treated as other pleadings and answer filed thereto as a complaint. Rosewater v. Schwab Clothing Co., 58 Ark. 446, 25 S.W. 73 (1894).
The unverified petition of intervenor is good after judgment. Burke v. Sharp, 88 Ark. 433, 115 S.W. 145 (1908).
Written interplea may be waived by trying issues. Wray Bros. v. H.A. White Auto Co., 155 Ark. 153, 244 S.W. 18 (1922).
Scope of Proceedings.
This section does not allow an intervenor to contest the grounds of the attachment. Rice v. Adler-Goldman Comm'n Co., 71 F. 151 (8th Cir. 1895).
The proceeding authorized by this section is one to determine the ownership of the property in the hands of the court and, in such a proceeding, the interpleader may not recover from the plaintiff the value of the attached property. Swift & Co. v. Russell, 97 F. 443 (8th Cir. 1899).
The proceedings under this section contemplate only a trial of the right of property; damages for the detention of the property can only be recovered in a separate action. Jefferson v. Dunavant, 53 Ark. 133, 13 S.W. 701 (1890).
There is no authority to deliver possession to the intervenor under this section. Fitzhugh v. Hackley, 70 Ark. 54, 66 S.W. 146 (1902).
Standing.
Under subsection (a) of this section, “any person” is permitted to present his complaint to the court, including a person who has assigned the funds that are the subject of a garnishment. Watkins v. Hadamek, 48 Ark. App. 78, 892 S.W.2d 515 (1994).
Cited: Burbridge Found., Inc. v. Reinholdt & Gardner, 363 F. Supp. 445 (W.D. Ark. 1973); Turner v. Farnam, 82 Ark. App. 489, 120 S.W.3d 616 (2003); Collins v. Hall, 2014 Ark. App. 731, 455 S.W.3d 331 (2014).