J.B. Hunt, LLC v. Thornton, 2014 Ark. 62

Hunt, a judgment creditor, seeks to attach the Thorntons’ contingent trust distributions to satisfy a $12.7M judgment.
Thorntons are trustees and life beneficiaries of five charitable-remainder trusts; distributions are quarterly and contingent on survival.
Hunt filed an attachment action under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-66-418 to reach future distributions and named the trusts’ custodian.
The circuit court consolidated Hunt’s action with related proceedings; it dismissed Hunt’s complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
The court also sustained subsequent writs of garnishment for other creditors; Hunt appealed the dismissal and the garnishments.
The majority affirmed the dismissal; the dissent would allow a creditor’s bill under § 16-66-418 to reach the trusts’ future distributions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 28-73-501 permits attachment of future distributions	Hunt argues attachable present/future distributions exist	Appellees argue attachment not permissible under facts	Affirmed; future distributions cannot be reached by attachment under § 28-73-501 under these facts.
Whether § 16-66-418 is proper when garnishment fails	Hunt contends § 16-66-418 provides equitable remedy when other remedies fail	Appellees contend § 16-66-418 is inappropriate here	Affirmed; § 16-66-418 not applicable given the contingent nature of distributions.
Whether Miller v. Maryland Casualty Co. supports a creditor’s bill here	Hunt relies on Miller to reach a debtor’s trust interest by creditor’s bill	Appellees distinguish Miller as inapplicable to these facts	Affirmed; Miller does not control; distributions are contingent and not currently reachable.
Whether Cummings v. Fingers supports equitable attachment in this context	Hunt cites Cummings to justify equitable attachment	Appellees argue Cummings is distinguishable	Affirmed; Cummings does not authorize this remedy here.
Whether the circuit court properly dismissed the action	Hunt contends dismissal too broad and alternative remedies exist	Appellees maintain complaint fails to state a claim under the statute	Affirmed; dismissal was not an abuse of discretion.

Miller v. Maryland Casualty Co., 207 Ark. 312 (1944) (creditor’s bill may reach a debtor’s trust interest when regular process is insufficient)
Thompson v. Bank of Am., 356 Ark. 576 (2004) (garnishment reaches debtor’s property; contingent future payments not garnishable)
Cummings v. Fingers, 296 Ark. 276 (1988) (equitable attachment appropriate when no other legal remedy)