Cite as 2014 Ark. 363
legislation what is simply not there. Cave City Nursing Home, Inc., supra.
While both parties cite to cases from other jurisdictions as support for its own interpretation, none of those cases involved the interpretation of identical language found in our own statute, and therefore, they are not persuasive in this court's interpretation of section 17-24-101 or section 17-24-301.[1] Rather, we find the language in the statutes relevant to this case to be clear and unambiguous, and this court need not search for a legislative intent. Cave City Nursing Home, Inc., supra. Furthermore, the provisions can be read in a consistent, harmonious, and sensible manner, giving effect to every part. Cavalry clearly purchased and attempted to collect delinquent accounts or bills, and therefore, Cavalry is a collection agency under the plain language of section 17-24-101. The mere fact that Cavalry retained an attorney to act on its behalf to litigate the matter is irrelevant under these circumstances as to whether Cavalry was attempting to collect.
Finally, Cavalry contends that this court should give deference to the State Board of Collection Agencies' ("SBCA") interpretation published in a clarification statement in the minutes of a SBCA meeting held on August 15, 2012, stating in pertinent part,
IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the Arkansas State Board of Collection Agencies recognizes as exempt from collection agency licensure in Arkansas any entity
- ↑ In Finch v. LVNV Funding, LLC, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland held that a similar Maryland statute required a collection agency to obtain a license and defined a collection agency as a "'person who engages directly or indirectly in the business.'" 71 A.3d 193 (2013) (quoting Md. Code Ann., Bus. Reg. § 7-101(c)). The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee interpreted a Tennessee Act to require an entity to actually "engage in collection activity." Smith v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 2014 WL 923220 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 10, 2014).
7
