Page:Simpson v. Cavalry SPV I, LLC.pdf/4

 ''Cnty. v. Ark. Democrat–Gazette, Inc.'', 370 Ark. 435, 260 S.W.3d 718 (2007). When a statute is ambiguous, this court must interpret it according to legislative intent and our review becomes an examination of the whole act. ''Helena–W. Helena Sch. Dist. v. Fluker'', 371 Ark. 574, 580, 268 S.W.3d 879, 884 (2007). In reviewing the act in its entirety, this court will reconcile provisions to make them consistent, harmonious, and sensible in an effort to give effect to every part. ''Williams v. Little Rock Sch. Dist.'', 347 Ark. 637, 66 S.W.3d 590 (2002). In addition, this court must look at the legislative history, the language, and the subject matter involved. Id. However, when a statute is clear, it is given its plain meaning and this court will not search for legislative intent. ''Cave City Nursing Home, Inc. v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.'', 351 Ark. 13, 89 S.W.3d 884 (2002). This court is very hesitant to interpret a legislative act in a manner that is contrary to its express language, unless it is clear that a drafting error or omission has circumvented legislative intent. Id. In addressing the first certified question, Simpson contends that Cavalry meets the definition of a collection agency under Ark. Code Ann. § 17-24-101 (Repl. 2010) "because it attempts to collect delinquent accounts that it purchases from other persons." Arkansas