Bokker v. Hill (1997)
Citation: 327 Ark. 742, 940 S.W.2d 852. Court: Arkansas Supreme Court. Decided: March 24, 1997, No. 96-481. Full judicial opinion retrieved through unofficial FindLaw reproduction. Opinion.
Source note (2026-10-18):
- source replaced 2026-10-18: static.case.law robots-disallowed; official copy at Arkansas Judiciary official opinions archive (replaces
https://static.case.law/ark/327/cases/0742-01.json; retrieval dates stated elsewhere on this page refer to the earlier copy).
Facts
Bokker financed Hill’s purchase of a Toyota and appeared as first lienholder on the title, which was delivered to Hill. Peterson repaired its rear window, remained unpaid and kept the car, claiming repair and storage charges. The parties obtained an agreed sale order, but did not comply with it; the trial court instead decided the competing liens’ priority. Opinion.
Holding
The court affirmed priority for Peterson under the then-existing § 18-45-202(b). Bokker had not retained title as that version demanded, although another statute prohibited that practice. The court declined to create vendor priority without statutory authority. An attorney-fee/cost argument was unpreserved. Opinion.
Reasoning
Perfection and priority were separate questions. The title-retention statute and vendor-priority wording conflicted; the court left correction to the legislature rather than rewriting the priority statute. This was a lien-ranking appeal, not a decision that every repair-shop auction conveys clean title. Opinion.
Practical impact
The case explains why a historical Arkansas mechanic-priority decision cannot safely determine a present auction’s lien status. The legislature amended the priority text in Act 695 of 1999, replacing the title-retention condition with the perfected purchase-money lien formulation. The later official Kellogg order expressly notes that change. Act 695; Kellogg order, n.1.
Good-law status
Statutory priority premise superseded by the 1999 amendment. needs_verification: comprehensive subsequent-treatment review was not completed. No formal appellate overruling or distinguishing treatment is asserted. Current priority analysis must use the amended law, not Bokker’s former statutory premise.
The independent October 17, 2026 pass retrieved the full FindLaw opinion through ordinary web access and the full official Act 695 and Kellogg order separately. A direct request returning 403 does not invalidate the successful opinion retrieval. Those sources verify the historical holding and statutory supersession; targeted later treatment searches did not establish comprehensive good-law status. The 2023 repair-sale procedure is a separate amendment, not a new holding in this priority case. Act 388.
Applies in →
arkansas, motor-vehicles, kellogg-valley-motor-sales-v-bowdie-2003.
Legal information, not legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney for advice about a specific situation.