ARK .] 25 Robert E. SAUNDERS, and Gloria L. Saunders, d/b/a Royal Coach Car Wash v. George 0. KLEIER, Tom Tucker, Irene Tucker, and Mark Tucker, d/b/a Mark Tucker Enterprises 88-20 751 S.W.2d 343 Supreme Court of Arkansas Opinion delivered June 13, 1988 1. JUDGMENT - RECOVERY OF ATTORNEY'S FEES - GENERAL RULE. — The general rule is that attorney's fees are not allowed except when "expressly" provided for by statute. 2. INTERPLEADER - RECOVERY OF ATTORNEY'S FEES - ARCP RULE 22 DOES NOT PERMIT RECOVERY OF ATTORNEY'S FEES. - While Ark. Stat. Ann. § 27-816 (Repl. 1962) provided for the recovery of attorney's fees, that statute was specifically superseded by ARCP Rule 22, which does not provide or even mention recovery of legal expenses, and it was not error for the trial court to deny appellants' request for attorney's fees. 3. APPEAL & ERROR - MOOTNESS - WHERE THE PURPOSE OF THE APPELLANTS' ACTION HAD BEEN ACCOMPLISHED, THE REMAINING ISSUES WERE MOOT. - Where the sole objective of the appellants' interpleader action was to have the court determine whether monies owed by the appellants should be paid to their creditor, the garnishor, or to a third party pursuant to an assignment, and where subsequent to the filing of the interpleader action, the garnishor informed the court that the monies deposited into the court registry by the appellants had satisfied the judgment, the purpose of the interpleader action had been accomplished and the remaining issues in the appellants' arguments were rendered moot. 4. APPEAL & ERROR - MOOTNESS - THE SUPREME COURT WILL NOT GIVE OPINIONS UPON MATTERS WHICH ARE MOOT. - It 1S the duty of the supreme court to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect and not to give opinions upon abstract propositions or to declare principles of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case at bar; where the appellants' remaining complaints of error had been rendered moot by payment and satisfaction of the judgment in question, the supreme court did not address those issues. Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court; Don Langston, Judge; affirmed.
26 SAUNDERS V. KLEIER [296 Cite as 296 Ark. 25 (1988) Phillip J. Taylor, for appellants. Taylor & Vandergriff; by: David B. Vandergriff, for appel-lee George 0. Kleier. Matthew Horan, for appellee Tom Tucker. JACK HOLT, JR., Chief Justice. The appellants, Robert and Gloria Saunders, garnishees below, bring this appeal from an order of the circuit court dismissing with prejudice their petition to interplead funds and their related request for attorney's fees. The Saunderses contend that the court abused its discretion in denying attorney's fees and that the interpleader action should not have been dismissed without a hearing. It is also argued that the default judgment entered against the debtor was improper, as was the clerk's disbursement of the garnished monies without written order of the court. We find no error and affirm. Separate appellee George 0. Kleier filed suit against appel-lees Tom and Irene Tucker for failure to pay the final month's rent on a lease. Irene Tucker answered and defended; Tom Tucker did not. Kleier filed a motion for summary judgment against Irene Tucker which also alleged that Tom Tucker was in default. Irene Tucker responded by filing an affidavit asserting that the final month's rent had been paid in full. The court denied the summary judgment motion, but entered a default judgment against defendant Tom Tucker. Kleier then obtained a writ of garnishment against the Saunderses. Their response to the writ admitted that they were indebted to Tom Tucker in the amount of $26,420.00. The court entered an order directing that the Saunderses pay Kleier (by deposit with the court) the amount of the default judgment against Tom Tucker. The Saunderses made the first payment and notified Tom Tucker of that fact. Tucker responded that he had assigned the debt to Mark Tucker d/b/a Mark Tucker Enterprises, but nonetheless claimed a right to the monies deposited with the court as he had not received notice of the garnishment and suggested that the Saunderses not pay additional monies into the registry of the court unless served with a second writ of garnishment. Tucker also filed a motion to quash the garnishment.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.