Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 18-46-117 (2020)

Pro rata payment of claims

✓ Arkansas Code release r76: Acts through about 2020 (2021-2025 sessions missing)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

If the amount for which a tortfeasor or an insurer is liable to the patient on account of his or her injury is not sufficient to pay in full the claims of all practitioners, nurses, hospitals, and ambulance service providers that rendered service in the case and who have given notice of liens, then each practitioner, nurse, hospital, and ambulance service provider shall share in the amount payable to the patient in the proportion that his or her claim bears to the total amount claimed by all other practitioners, nurses, hospitals, and ambulance service providers.

History. Acts 1933, No. 130, § 5; Pope's Dig., §§ 7993, 10822; A.S.A. 1947, § 51-805; Acts 1993, No. 271, § 15.

Case Notes

Full Amount of Lien Not Discharged.

Where hospital's assignee established lien pursuant to § 18-46-108 and received a pro rata share of settlement proceeds pursuant to this section, acceptance of amount less than full amount of the lien did not discharge the entire debt as court order apportioning settlement and extinguishing the lien did not raise or determine issue of debtor's liability on the entire debt, was not the equivalent of extinguishing the debt and did not bar assignee, under the doctrine of res judicata, from seeking payment of the greater amount, and there was no agreement between the parties that acceptance of a lesser amount would operate as an accord and satisfaction of the debt. Fort Smith Serv. Fin. Corp. v. Parrish, 302 Ark. 299, 789 S.W.2d 723 (1990).

Chapter 47 Federal Liens

Subchapter 1 — General Provisions

[Reserved]

Subchapter 2 — Uniform Federal Lien Registration Act

Publisher's Notes. For Comments regarding the Uniform Federal Lien Registration Act, see Commentaries Volume B.

Former subchapter 2, concerning the uniform federal tax lien registration act, was repealed by Acts 1989, No. 835, § 8. The former subchapter was derived from the following sources:

18-47-201. Acts 1941, No. 316, § 1; A.S.A. 1947, § 51-101.

18-47-202. Acts 1941, No. 316, § 2; A.S.A. 1947, § 51-102.

18-47-203. Acts 1941, No. 316, § 3; A.S.A. 1947, § 51-103.

18-47-204. Acts 1941, No. 316, § 4; A.S.A. 1947, § 51-104.

18-47-205. Acts 1941, No. 316, § 5; A.S.A. 1947, § 51-105.

18-47-206. Acts 1941, No. 316, § 6; A.S.A. 1947, § 51-106.

18-47-207. Acts 1941, No. 316, § 7; A.S.A. 1947, § 51-107.

18-47-208. Acts 1941, No. 316, § 8; A.S.A. 1947, § 51-107n.

Effective Dates. Acts 1989, No. 835, § 10: Mar. 22, 1989. Emergency clause provided: “It is hereby found and determined by the General Assembly that the existing law regarding the filing of federal liens is inadequate and out of date and there is a need to make the law of all of the states uniform. Therefore, an emergency is hereby declared to exist and this act being necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health, and safety shall be in effect from the date of its passage and approval.”

Case Notes

Motor Vehicles.

It was not the intention of the legislature in enacting § 27-14-101 et seq. to repeal this subchapter as it related to automobiles or otherwise. Union Planters Nat'l Bank v. Godwin, 140 F. Supp. 528 (E.D. Ark. 1956).

Where government complied with this subchapter in filing tax lien on automobile, the lien would be preferred to claim of purchaser at execution sale under judgment obtained after time of filing of lien even though the provisions of §§ 27-14-801 — 27-14-804 were not complied with. Union Planters Nat'l Bank v. Godwin, 140 F. Supp. 528 (E.D. Ark. 1956).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 1990–1990 · leading case: Fort Smith Serv. Fin. Corp. v. Parrish, 789 S.W.2d 723 (Ark. 1990).
Fort Smith Serv. Fin. Corp. v. Parrish, 789 S.W.2d 723 (Ark. 1990). · cites it 2× “If the case is settled and the amount of the settlement is not sufficient to pay all lien claimants in full, each claimant receives a pro rata share as computed under Ark. Code Ann. § 18-46-117 (1987). On appeal, Parrish offers two theories to explain why FSSFC’s acceptance of…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.