substitute procedural requirement in Arkansas

1998In Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), the United States Supreme Court outlined three factors relevant in determining what process is constitutionally due: First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.

1988The foregoing defects in our code provisions must be balanced against “the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.” See Matthews, supra. The state has a strong interest in providing equitable procedural safeguards which protect the interests of both creditor and debtor.