Legal Opinion · Dissent

Sanford v. Otasco, Inc.

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided February 19, 1980No. 79-243Published

1DissentJames F. Stroud, Justice

Construing Ark. Stat. Ann. §§ 30-207 and 30-209 (Repl. 1979) liberally in favor of the debtor, I still cannot reach the conclusion that the debtor may claim all of his wages as exempt when those wages together with his other personal property exceed $500.00 in value. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 30-207 is unmistakably clear that for wages (not exceeding 60 days wages) to be exempt from garnishment or other legal process, they must not exceed the constitutional exemption when added together with the value of the other personal property of the debtor.

These two statutes must be reconciled, as they were…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Andrews v. BriggsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1942

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API