It is a well-settled rule of statutory construction that the repeal of an existing law by implication is not favored by the courts, and a legislative enactment will not be interpreted as repealing by implication a prior statute unless the repugnancy is so clear as to admit no other reasonable construction. Cf. Tipton v. Brown, 277 Ky. 625, 126 S.W.2d 1067 (1939), cited in Preston v. Floyd/Johnson County Pilots, Ky.App., 867 S.W.2d 474 (1993). See also Holcomb v. Mayes, Ky., 290 S.W.2d 486 (1956). Courts will presume that where the legislature intended a subsequent act to repeal a former one, it will so express itself so as to leave no doubt as to its purpose.

Similarly, when two statutes are in apparent conflict and the inconsistencies cannot be reconciled, the one containing express and positive language relating to a particular subject should take precedence over the more general provision. Preston v. Floyd/Johnson County Pilots Assoc., 867 S.W.2d 474, 475 (Ky. App. 1993). The General Assembly enacted KRS 532.110(1)(c) in 1974, and subsequently enacted KRS 533.060(2) and (3) in 1976.