{
  "id": 6142977,
  "name": "ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA v. Katie HIGGINS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Aluminum Co. of America v. Higgins",
  "decision_date": "1982-06-30",
  "docket_number": "CA 81-369",
  "first_page": "296",
  "last_page": "299",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "5 Ark. App. 296"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "635 S.W.2d 290"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "241 Ark. 360",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1724076
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/241/0360-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "235 Ark. 609",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1684856
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1962,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/235/0609-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 Ark. App. 243",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6715562
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/3/0243-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 329,
    "char_count": 5073,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.836,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.02775614952798e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5471724413276604
    },
    "sha256": "dfcf3dd6464dbe8722411a2ea3553f097e69a8406505af7044b35e87f6bc2569",
    "simhash": "1:7a589d6964b35958",
    "word_count": 826
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:41:16.889106+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Cloninger, J., dissents."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA v. Katie HIGGINS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Tom Glaze, Judge.\nAppellee instituted an action against appellant, as garnishee, to collect a judgment rendered against her former husband, Charlie Higgins, an employee of appellant, for child support arrearages. After the garnishment action was filed, appellee\u2019s ex-husband filed a voluntary petition in bankruptcy. In his Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan, he provided for payment of the $4,075 judgment, which was the subject of the garnishment action. Upon learning of the bankruptcy proceeding, Ms. Norma Gardner, appellant\u2019s employee responsible for answering garnishments, called the bankruptcy court clerk\u2019s office for advice. Ms. Gardner was informed that appellant was not required to answer appellee\u2019s garnishment action because the Chapter 13 plan had been filed. Relying on this advice, Ms. Gardner did not cause an answer to be filed on behalf of appellant. Subsequently, the chancery court entered a judgment against appellant in the amount of $4,075 plus costs.\nAppellant seeks reversal of the chancery court\u2019s judgment and argues: (1) The court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the garnishment action; its judgment was entered in violation of the bankruptcy court\u2019s automatic stay order; and its judgment violated Section 1302 of the Bankruptcy Code in that the judgment disrupted the orderly payment of appellee\u2019s debt; and (2) In the alternative, appellant\u2019s failure to answer was due to excusable neglect.\nThe jurisdictional and relative issues raised by appellant, we believe, are controlled by our decision in Van Balen v. Peoples Bank & Trust Company, 3 Ark. App. 243, 626 S.W.2d 205 (1981), wherein we held that the automatic stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code did not automatically stay a proceeding against a guarantor of the bankrupt debtor. In so holding, we concluded, in sum, that the filing of a voluntary petition in bankruptcy effects an automatic stay as to the commencement or continuance of any claim against the debtor or his estate, but the stay was not for the benefit of other parties.\nAppellant argues that Van Balen is distinguishable on its facts since that case involved an action against a third party guarantor and was not directed against the debtor or his estate. Here, appellant argues further, we have a garnishment action which is directed at the property of the debtor held by the garnishee and the liability of the garnishee is limited to the amount of that property. See Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7\u00a7 31-501, et seq.\nThe fallacy in appellant\u2019s argument is that under the facts and applicable law in this case, appellee\u2019s garnishment action did not impound the debtor\u2019s property or money in the possession of appellant at the time the writ was served. Rather, appellant, as garnishee, failed to file any responsive pleading to the action within the time fixed by Statute and, under Arkansas law, a j udgment for the amount sought was rendered against appellant, not the debtor. See Karoley v. A. R. & T. Electronics, Inc., 235 Ark. 609, 363 S.W.2d 120 (1962). If appellant had properly filed an answer limiting its liability to the monies it may have held for and owed to the debtor-employee, we unquestionably would have reached a different conclusion. Since appellant failed to answer, we find the debtor\u2019s property or estate was not the subject matter of the pending garnishment proceeding. This being so, the exclusive jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court and its stay order did not serve to enjoin or otherwise affect further state court proceedings against the appellant.\nWe believe that Alcoa\u2019s failure to answer was due to excusable neglect. To hold otherwise would fetter and inhibit the power of courts to correct a wrong that arose from a mere inability to do right. The facts here are not unlike those found in Lewis v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Company, 241 Ark. 360, 407 S.W.2d 750 (1966). Ms. Gardner, Alcoa\u2019s employee responsible for answering garnishments, withheld Charlie Higgins\u2019 paycheck on the Friday after she received the writ of garnishment. Immediately after receipt of the writ, Ms. Gardner learned that Higgins had filed for bankruptcy. She at once called the federal bankruptcy office and was informed that she did not have to file an answer. Later, after appellee\u2019s attorney called inquiring about the writ, she again called a second time; once again, the federal bankruptcy clerk told her no answer was required. Alcoa was under a federal bankruptcy order to withhold Higgins\u2019 monies and pay them over to the Trustee in bankruptcy.\nIn view of the facts set forth above, and in view of the further facts that (1) there is no contention that Alcoa did not act in good faith, and (2) there is no contention that Alcoa actually owed Higgins $4,075, we find good cause to believe that Alcoa\u2019s failure to answer was due to excusable neglect. We reverse.\nReversed.\nCloninger, J., dissents.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Tom Glaze, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Carol S. Arnold of Rose Law Firm, for appellant.",
      "Sam Ed Gibson, P.A., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA v. Katie HIGGINS\nCA 81-369\n635 S.W.2d 290\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered June 30, 1982\nCarol S. Arnold of Rose Law Firm, for appellant.\nSam Ed Gibson, P.A., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0296-01",
  "first_page_order": 318,
  "last_page_order": 321
}