Ark. Code Ann. § 4-58-102 (2026)

Research References

U. Ark. Little Rock L.J.

Arkansas Law Survey, Looney, Business Law, 8 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 99.

Case Notes

Construction.

There was not an irreconcilable conflict between § 23-85-114(b)(2) and this section and the insurance code provisions did not repeal the general law on assignments. American Medical Int'l, Inc. v. Arkansas Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 299 Ark. 514, 773 S.W.2d 831 (1989).

Applicability.

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) does not preempt the Arkansas assignment statute, as the assignment statute applies to welfare benefits payable under ERISA plans. Arkansas Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. St. Mary's Hosp., 947 F.2d 1341 (8th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 957, 112 S. Ct. 2305 (1992).

Acknowledgments of Debt.

A written acknowledgment of a debt, signed by the maker, is assignable, and may be sued on by the holder, without making his assignor a party, although there is no written assignment upon it. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. v. Camden Bank, 47 Ark. 541, 1 S.W. 704 (1886).

Automobile Insurance Benefits.

Automobile insurer's payment of med-pay benefits to a medical center over the insured's objections was upheld where: the policy stated that benefits can be paid “to or for” the insured; sections 23-89-202 and 23-89-204 do not mandate payment only to the insured; section 4-58-102 allows an insured to assign the right to receive insurance proceeds, as the insured had done in this case, and the insurer was obligated by law to honor the assignment and lien; section 23-85-114(b) does not apply to automobile insurance; and there was no evidence that the insured had advised either the insurer or the medical center of a revocation of the specific assignment of benefits to the medical center. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Norton, 2020 Ark. App. 100, 596 S.W.3d 522 (2020).

Bill of Lading.

Bill of lading was assignable. Price v. New York, C. & S. L. R. Co., 175 Ark. 688, 300 S.W. 373 (1927).

Causes of Action.

In an action by the insurer against the person whose negligence is alleged to have caused a fire loss which the insurer paid, the insured was a necessary party as the cause of action was not assignable at law. National Fire Ins. Co. v. Pettit-Galloway Co., 157 Ark. 333, 248 S.W. 262 (1923).

Contracts.

A contract for the sale of chattels which involves no personal relation of confidence between the parties and no personal skill or science may be assigned. Roberts Cotton Oil Co. v. F.E. Morse & Co., 97 Ark. 513, 135 S.W. 334 (1911).

Where purchaser of a mercantile business, as part of the price agreed to pay certain of seller's debts, the purchaser was liable to the assignee of seller's creditor. National Trust & Credit Co. v. Polk, 123 Ark. 24, 183 S.W. 195 (1916).

An executory contract for the purchase of land is assignable. Corcorren v. Sharum, 141 Ark. 572, 217 S.W. 803 (1920).

Contract of sale providing for retention of deed and abstract conditional on making of periodic payments can be assigned by vendor. Lancaster v. Robinson, 221 Ark. 767, 256 S.W.2d 330 (1953).

A letter stating that if a contractor does not pay a subcontractor, he can deliver the letter to a city commission as an assignment of money due the contractor under a valid contract, constitutes an equitable assignment with or without the debtors acceptance, since no particular words are necessary and since it is the transfer of an interest under the assignor's express intention. Robinson v. City of Pine Bluff, 224 Ark. 791, 276 S.W.2d 419 (1955).

Principal stockholder who in contract of sale agreed to pay all liabilities of corporation that were then outstanding, assumed corporate liabilities, and was responsible for a claim that existed under a certain contract, and where the corporation discharged obligation to the creditor's satisfaction, the principal stockholder had received the benefit of the transaction and was required to satisfy the record of the mortgage indebtedness. Harris v. Helena Rice Drier, Inc., 227 Ark. 205, 297 S.W.2d 652 (1957).

Escrow Agreements.

Where the original buyer of corporate stock under escrow agreement did not assign to assignee any more than he was entitled to under the escrow agreement, i.e., the right to pay off the price of the stock in annual installments, such assignment was valid and upon fulfillment of the condition, the assignee would then be entitled to whatever rights the assignor would have had upon the fulfillment of the condition. Estate of Ingram v. Kochtitzky, 282 Ark. 203, 668 S.W.2d 1 (1984), rehearing denied, 282 Ark. 206a, 671 S.W.2d 162 (1984).

Garnishment of Proceeds.

Where debtor-employee had assigned the proceeds of a service contract to a bank, the trial court did not err in quashing a garnishment on the employer and paying the money to the bank. Watkins v. Hadamek, 48 Ark. App. 78, 892 S.W.2d 515 (1994).

Open Accounts.

An open account is not an assignable instrument. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. v. Camden Bank, 47 Ark. 541, 1 S.W. 704 (1886); Oberste Bros. v. Crabtree, 175 Ark. 107, 299 S.W. 6 (1927); Maryland Cas. Co. v. People's Lumber & Supply Co., 181 Ark. 761, 27 S.W.2d 1023 (1930).

Promissory Notes.

Promissory note is assignable. Higginbotham v. Ritter, 200 Ark. 376, 139 S.W.2d 27 (1940).

Although debtor executed a back-dated assignment purporting to convey all of his right, title, and interest in a promissory note to his parents, their interest in its proceeds was superior to that of debtor's creditors under this section and § 4-58-105, where the parties to the assignment did not intend an absolute transfer of the note, but merely the creation of a security interest. Luker v. Reeves, 65 F.3d 670 (8th Cir. 1995).

Warrants.

Where a county court made an order of allowance and issued warrants based thereon, the warrants were assignable and the assignee could appeal from a subsequent order of the county court canceling the warrants as improperly issued. Woodruff County v. Road Improv. Dist., 159 Ark. 374, 252 S.W. 930 (1923).

Writing Required.

Only agreements or contracts in writing are assignable. Chicago, Rock Island & Pac. Ry. v. Cobbs, 151 Ark. 207, 235 S.W. 995 (1921).

Cited: Estate of Ingram v. Kochtitzky, 282 Ark. 206a, 671 S.W.2d 162 (1984).