{
  "id": 1875347,
  "name": "VALLEY NATIONAL BANK OF ARIZONA v. Warren STROUD and Carol STROUD, and Bobby EPPERSON, Commissioner",
  "name_abbreviation": "Valley National Bank v. Stroud",
  "decision_date": "1986-06-23",
  "docket_number": "86-47",
  "first_page": "284",
  "last_page": "286",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "289 Ark. 284"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "711 S.W.2d 785"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "277 Ark. 222",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1750193
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/277/0222-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 244,
    "char_count": 3287,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.898,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2362343274548315e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6067633672851197
    },
    "sha256": "a06fcac5a18fa078a9088fe9422b17afb36be2a87415924809207ff3debcc63e",
    "simhash": "1:2eccb1f424a0ee0e",
    "word_count": 561
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:22:34.211418+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "VALLEY NATIONAL BANK OF ARIZONA v. Warren STROUD and Carol STROUD, and Bobby EPPERSON, Commissioner"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "John I. Purtle, Justice.\nThe chancellor entered a decree of divorce in which certain property of the parties was ordered sold at public auction. The court appointed the chancery clerk commissioner for the purpose of conducting the sale. The clerk was awarded a fee for his services in the amount of $600.00. The clerk accepted the husband\u2019s bid at the first sale; however, the husband was unable to consummate the sale and the property was auctioned off at a second sale for the sum of $52,000.\nThe Strouds owed money on a promissory note and mortgage on their home place. They defaulted and the mortgage holder intervened to foreclose the mortgage. The parties to the divorce owed the appellant on an open line of credit. The appellant was allowed to intervene in the divorce proceeding and obtained a summary judgment against the parties to the divorce in the amount of $29,809.03.\nDuring the divorce proceeding the chancery clerk held funds belonging to the parties to the divorce in the amount of $29,567.19. Appellant garnished these funds, which were insufficient to pay appellant\u2019s judgment. The clerk\u2019s commission in the amount of $600 was paid from the funds held in escrow. The appellants argue on appeal that the fee allowed for the services in connection with the sale were excessive.\nThe only issue on appeal is whether the court erred in allowing the commissioner\u2019s fee in an amount in excess of the fee established in Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 12-1712 (Repl. 1979). This statute establishes a fee schedule for commissioners at judicial sales. A sale for $35,000 or more calls for a commission of one-tenth of one per cent. Based on the sale of the real property in this case the commissioner would be entitled to a fee of $52.00.\nThe other statute relevant to this dispute is Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 22-449 (Supp. 1985). The pertinent part of the last cited statute reads as follows: \u201cAny master or commissioner appointed shall receive for such services such compensation as may be fixed by the court, unless the amount of compensation shall be now or hereafter fixed by law [emphasis added].\u201d In the present case we have a general and a special statute involved. In statutory construction where specific expressions conflict with general expressions, the rule is to give greater effect to the specific expression. Thomas v. Easley, 277 Ark. 222, 640 S.W.2d 797 (1982). It is not necessary to resort to this rule of construction in the present case because the general statute (\u00a7 22-449) expressly exempts cases where the compensation may now or hereafter be fixed by law. The specific statute (\u00a7 12-1712) was in effect at the time of the enactment of the general statute.\nWe hold that the real property was sold only one time and that was for the amount of $52,000. The fee fixed by law for such sale is $52.00. A sale is not completed until it is confirmed by the court. The first sale was not confirmed.\nReversed and remanded with instructions to proceed in a manner not inconsistent with this opinion.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "John I. Purtle, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Peel & Eddy, by: David L. Eddy, for appellant.",
      "Streett & Kennedy, by: Alex G. Streett, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "VALLEY NATIONAL BANK OF ARIZONA v. Warren STROUD and Carol STROUD, and Bobby EPPERSON, Commissioner\n86-47\n711 S.W.2d 785\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered June 23, 1986\nPeel & Eddy, by: David L. Eddy, for appellant.\nStreett & Kennedy, by: Alex G. Streett, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0284-01",
  "first_page_order": 310,
  "last_page_order": 312
}