Opinion ID: 1781943
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: ramifications

Text: The majority's proposal would change our existing law, creating a judicial mosaic from patchwork rules and guidelines borrowed from other jurisdictions. However, that process disregards the fact that our statutory scheme, like that of other jurisdictions, is an integrated system of laws. We cannot borrow a statute from another jurisdiction and judicially insert it into our system without disrupting the existing statutory framework. Such action will cause our system of laws governing our citizenry to function ineffectively and will mandate amendment of affected existing statutes or enactment of additional statutes in order to remedy the calamity. Consequently, interjection of the majority's proposed guidelines into our existing system would invite trouble. Their utilization would undoubtedly lead to inconsistent, arbitrary, and often egregious results. Under the majority's guidelines, the respective needs of the parties is an integral component of the chancellor's consideration. Therefore, application of the majority's doctrine would lead to the inescapable situation in which a spouse, man or wife, who came to a marriage with nothing and who did little to contribute to acquiring assets but had a substantial need upon divorce, would leave with the lion's share of the marital property. Meanwhile, the other spouse, who was all but totally responsible for the acquisition of the majority of the property acquired during the marriage, would only be awarded a small portion of those assets. Such a result would not embody equity. Instead, it would merely reflect a post-marital gift. The ramifications of today's majority opinion, if implemented, are staggering. The chain of ownership anticipated by deeds which conveyed future interests and life tenancies would be doubtful. Our notice statutes would be useless. Co-tenants could have new co-tenants imposed upon them. The rights of third parties in the property of a spouse would be affected, and the right to contract would be severely curtailed. III.