Case Name: Diana STOVER v. Curtis E. STOVER
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Arkansas
Decision Date: 1985-10-07
Citations: 287 Ark. 116
Docket Number: 85-50
Parties: Diana STOVER v. Curtis E. STOVER
Judges: Dudley and Newbern, JJ., dissent.
Reporter: Arkansas Reports
Volume: 287
Pages: 116–122

Head Matter:
Diana STOVER v. Curtis E. STOVER
85-50
696 S.W.2d 750
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Opinion delivered October 7, 1985
Jean M. Madden, for appellant.
Jack Holt, Jr., for appellee.

Opinion:
Mitchell D. Moore, Special Chief Justice.
The issue on appeal is the interpretation of Ark. Stat. Ann. § 34-1214 (A) (1) (Supp. 1985). Diana Stover, the appellant, has brought this appeal alleging that she has been deprived of "her vested property rights" which she held with her husband, Curtis E. Stover, a physician specializing in abortions. She was convicted of conspiring to murder the appellee and is serving a sentence in the Arkansas Department of Correction. In November of 1982, the court awarded a decree of divorce to the appellee, Curtis E. Stover, taking under advisement the question of the division of marital property of the parties.
In its supplemental decree on May 4, 1984, the court, in effect, found that the appellant was not entitled to: (1) a significant interest in marital property, (2) alimony, (3) an interest in appellee's medical practice and pension plan, (4) more than a partial interest in a Mercedes automobile, and (5) attorney's fees. The question of real and personal property held as tenants by the entirety does not exist in this appeal because such property held by the parties at the commencement of the divorce was levied upon and sold by the Internal Revenue Service, sold at foreclosure, and levied upon and sold by judgment creditors. In its supplemental decree the court stated for its basis and reasons for not dividing the marital property equally:
1. That it would be inequitable to distribute the marital property one-half to each party inasmuch as the Plaintiff, during the latter tenure of the marriage, was tried, convicted, and sentenced on a charge of criminal conspiracy, 1st degree, to cause the murder of the Defendant, Curtis E. Stover.
2. That under the facts and circumstances presented to this Court, the Court considers it fair and equitable, and thereby does order the following division of property:
The court proceeded to make the division.
All the issues raised on appeal by the appellant, Diana Stover, were addressed by the trial court in stating its basis and reasons for not dividing the marital property equally.
The applicable portions of Ark. Stat. Ann. § 34-1214, Division of Property, are:
(A) At the time a divorce decree is entered: (1) All marital property shall be distributed one-half (V2) to each party unless the court finds such a division to be inequitable, in which event the court shall make some other division that the court deems equitable taking into consideration (1) the length of the marriage; (2) age, health and station in life of the parties; (3) occupation of the parties; (4) amount and sources of income; (5) vocational skills; (6) employability; (7) estate, liabilities and needs of each party and opportunity of each for further acquisition of capital assets and income; (8) contribution of each party in acquisition, preservation or appreciation of marital property, including services as a homemaker; and (9) the federal income tax consequences of the Court's division of property. When property is divided pursuant to the foregoing considerations the court must state its basis and reasons for not dividing the marital property equally between the parties and such basis and reasons should be recited in the order entered in said matter.
The appellant contends that the trial court is limited in its division of property to only take into consideration the nine factors set forth in paragraph (A) (1) above. The primary rule in statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature. Heard v. Payne, 281 Ark. 485, 665 S.W.2d 865 (1984); Shinn v. Heath, 259 Ark. 577, 535 S.W.2d 57 (1976). Under the statute the court, in making an equitable division of property, is to take into consideration the nine factors enumerated. Does that preclude consideration of other factors? The rule of construction which dictates that general terms are controlled by specifics is to be used only to ascertain legislative intent not to control it or to confine the statute to narrower limits than intended. Wiseman v. Affolter, 192 Ark. 509, 92 S.W.2d 388 (1936); State v. Gallagher, 101 Ark. 593, 143 S.W. 98 (1912). We cannot hold that the legislature intended to preclude a chancellor from considering such bizarre facts as those in this case. Simply because the statute specifically enumerates certain factors for the chancellor to consider in distributing the marital property other than equally should not prevent consideration of the fact that one spouse has been convicted of conspiring to kill the other. That is the extent of our holding. A literal application which leads to absurd consequences should be rejected where an alternative interpretation effects the statute's purpose. See Hice v. State, 268 Ark. 57, 593 S.W.2d 169 (1980). The purpose of the statute must be considered in construing it. Berry v. Sale, 184 Ark. 655, 43 S.W.2d 225 (1931). The purpose of Ark. Stat. Ann. § 34-1214 (Supp. 1985) is to effect the equitable distribution of property upon divorce. We uphold the chancellor's decision.
Cases on appeal from the chancery court are tried de novo. This court does not reverse unless the findings of the trial judge are clearly erroneous, giving due deference to the trial judge's superior position to determine the credibility of witnesses, and the weight to be accorded to their testimony in the light of other facts before the trial judge. Edward v. Vaught, 284 Ark. 262, 681 S.W.2d 322 (1984).
The trial court during two days of trial had the opportunity to observe the parties and their witnesses and reflect upon their demeanor and testimony as given from the witness stand, and to make an equitable distribution between the parties where it found that an equal division would be inequitable. In the case of Day v. Day, 281 Ark. 261, 663 S.W.2d 719 (1984), it was stated:
To the contrary, Section 34-1214 allows leeway for the exercise of the Chancellor's best judgment, for it provides that all marital property shall be divided equally 'unless the court finds such division to be inequitable.'
This court, in the case of Potter v. Potter, 280 Ark. 38, 655 S.W.2d 382 (1983), held:
The statute states that all marital property shall be divided equally unless the court finds such a division to be inequitable, in which case the court shall make an equitable distribution.
The court has on more than one occasion recognized that the chancellor is given latitude in dealing with the division of property rights in order that an equitable division of property between parties will be made. Cases supporting this position Paulsen v. Paulsen, 269 Ark. 523, 601 S.W.2d 873 (1980); Bachman v. Bachman, 274 Ark. 23, 621 S.W.2d 701 (1981); and Hackett v. Hackett, 278 Ark. 82, 643 S.W.2d 560 (1982).
The ruling of the lower court is affirmed.
Dudley and Newbern, JJ., dissent.
Holt, C.J., and Purtle, J., not participating.