Court Opinion

ID: 9666999
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:32:25.706774+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:34.009547
License: Public Domain

Robert H. Dudley, Justice, concurring. I concur, but I feel that there may be a law student or a young lawyer who does not understand the distinctions in the three causes of action discussed in the majority opinion. It is for that person that I set out the differences: 1. An absolute divorce, or divorce from the bonds of matrimony or divorce a vinculo matrimonii, is a statutory action based on the grounds set out in Ark. Stat. Ann. § 34-1202 (Supp. 1981). Property must be divided upon granting an absolute divorce. § 34-1214 (Supp. 1981). Corroboration is required in contested cases. §§ 34-1207 and 34-1207.1 (Repl. 1962 and Supp. 1981). 2. A limited divorce, or a divorce from bed and board, or a divorce a mensa et thoro, is a statutory action based on the same grounds as those specified for an absolute divorce. Lytle v. Lytle, 266 Ark. 124, 583 S.W. 2d 1 (1979). Property must be divided upon the granting of a divorce. § 4, Act 799 of 1981.1 Corroboration is required, § 34-1207 and§ 34-1207.1, but see, Mason v. Mason, 248 Ark. 1177, 455 S.W. 2d 851 (1970). 3. An independent cause of action will lie for alimony. Reference is made to the action by Ark. Stat. Ann. § 34-1201 (Repl. 1962) but it is maintained under the broad power of equity. Wood v. Wood, 54 Ark. 172, 15 S.W. 459 (1891). There are no meaningful distinctions between the action for alimony and today’s action for separate maintenance. See Rosenbaum v. Rosenbaum, 206 Ark. 865, 177 S.W. 2d 926 (1944). In an action for separate maintenance it is unnecessary to establish statutory grounds, all that must be established are a separation and an absence of fault. Hill v. Rowles, Chancellor, 223 Ark. 115, 264 S.W. 2d 638 (1954). In a suit for separate maintenance there is no statutory requirement for corroboration. Gilliam v. Gilliam, 232 Ark. 765, 340 S.W. 2d 272 (1960). Property cannot be divided in a separate maintenance proceeding although possession may be awarded. Child custody actions between parents are actions derivative of divorce or separate maintenance. There is no independent cause of action by one parent against the other solely for child custody. Robins v. Arkansas Social Services, 273 Ark. 241, 617 S.W. 2d 857 (1981).  Section 4 of Acts 1981, No. 799, read: “It is hereby found and determined by the General Assembly that under the present Arkansas law, there is no provision for a ‘decree of legal separation’; that since there is no such provision, paragraph (3) of subsection (B) of Section 461 of the Civil Code as amended by Act 705 of 1979 actually has no application; that in a recent decision, the Arkansas Supreme Court carefully distinguished the proof requirements of absolute divorce and divorce from bed and board; that this Act is designed to clarify paragraph (3) of subsection (B) of Section 461 of the Civil Code, as amended, to specifically make the provisions thereof with respect to the division of property applicable not only in decrees of absolute divorce but also the decrees of divorce from bed and board; that this Act should be given effect immediately to render the provisions of present property division law compatible with the divorce law and cases. Therefore, an emergency is hereby declared to exist and this Act being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval.” Approved March 28, 1981.