Ark. Code Ann. § 4-4-403 (2026)
Customer's right to stop payment — Burden of proof of loss
- A customer or any person authorized to draw on the account if there is more than one person may stop payment of any item drawn on the customer's account or close the account by an order to the bank describing the item or account with reasonable certainty received at a time and in a manner that affords the bank a reasonable opportunity to act on it before any action by the bank with respect to the item described in this subsection. If the signature of more than one person is required to draw on an account, any of these persons may stop payment or close the account.
- A stop-payment order is effective for six months, but it lapses after 14 calendar days if the original order was oral and was not confirmed in a record within that period. A stop-payment order may be renewed for additional six-month periods by a record given to the bank within a period during which the stop-payment order is effective.
- The burden of establishing the fact and amount of loss resulting from the payment of an item contrary to a stop-payment order or order to close an account is on the customer. The loss from payment of an item contrary to a stop-payment order may include damages for dishonor of subsequent items under § 4-4-402.
History. Acts 1961, No. 185, § 4-403; A.S.A. 1947, § 85-4-403; Acts 1991, No. 572, § 6; 2005, No. 856, § 50.
RESEARCH REFERENCES
Ark. L. Rev.
Note, Vanished in the Blink of an Eye: Split-Second Garnishment Liability and Loan Manager Accounts in the Wake of In re Southwestern Glass, 58 Ark. L. Rev. 893.
U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev.
Survey of Legislation, 2005 Arkansas General Assembly, Business Law, 28 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 321.
Case Notes
Applicability.
Circuit court did not err in finding that a bank that had been served with a writ of garnishment was liable to the judgment creditor for the amount transferred from the judgment debtor's account after that account had been closed and then reopened; even assuming that the bank properly answered the writ of garnishment and was a payor bank under this section, § 16-110-406 controlled and required the bank to lien all money at the time the writ was served—immediately. As a result, the circuit court did not err in applying the garnishment statutes instead of Article 4 of the UCC. Eagle Bank & Trust Co. v. Raynor Mfg. Co., 2019 Ark. App. 168, 574 S.W.3d 196 (2019).
Opportunity to Act.
Stop-payment order was received in such manner as to afford defendant bank a reasonable opportunity to act upon it. First State Bank v. Dixon, 21 Ark. App. 17, 728 S.W.2d 192 (1987).