Court Opinion

ID: 9652978
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:36:19.227569+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:55.498650
License: Public Domain

John I. Purtle, Justice, dissenting. I disagree with the majority in the matter of the settlement of the personal property owned by these parties at the time of the divorce. I accept the figure of $300,000 as the value of the personal property owned by them at the time of the dissolution of the marriage. However, I cannot accept the division of the property in a manner which gives the husband 90% and the wife 10% of the jointly owned property. Equity requires reversal of these figures if the property is to be divided other than in equal shares as required by Act 705 of 1979. According to the majority ruling in this case, women are worse off now than they were before Act 705 was enacted by the General Assembly. Divorced women cannot stand any more progress if this is progress. The parties to this action were married when appellant was 17 years of age and still enrolled in high school. She went to New Jersey, where he was stationed in the service, and married her 21 year old sweetheart who was a college graduate. At that time neither party owned any property and in fact the appellee was in debt to his father. The following year (1961) the couple started their life together as sharecroppers. Soon they purchased a 157-acre farm and subsequently paid for it. His family gave them 29 acres upon which they built a home. The appellee has continued to expand his operations even while the appellant has been hospitalized. He, no doubt, is a hard worker and has a head for business. It cannot be doubted that she toiled in the fields, worked in a factory, kept house, and bore and helped raise their children up until recently. Perhaps this couple drove too hard in their attempt to get ahead. Unfortunately, the wife is no longer able, either physically or mentally, to help on the farm. She became mentally distressed some 13 years after the marriage and was hospitalized from time to time for treatment. She was in the hospital before her daughter was born and in fact was moved from the psychiatrie ward for the birth of the child and later moved back to the psychiatric ward. Finally, in 1977 she attempted suicide when it became apparent she would again have to be hospitalized. Appellee has recently acquired an 80-acre farm in his name as a trust estate. He also acquired another 80-acre farm and placed it in the name of their son. As previously stated, they owned personal property of the value of at least $300,000 at the time of the divorce. The trial court awarded appellee $270,000 and appellant $30,000 out of the personal property. She received nothing for the two 80-acre farms mentioned above. The appellee was given possession of the house and one acre of land and custody of the children. This unfortunate woman has been divorced and her children taken from her through no fault of her own. This court and the trial court have paid no heed to Act 705 of 1979 which clearly states: All marital property shall be distributed one-half (1/2) to each party unless the court finds such a division to be inequitable, ... The act further declares marital property means all property acquired by either spouse during the marriage. There are certain exceptions which are not involved in this case. The appellee had no grounds for divorce, and the fact that appellant did not contest it did not give the court the right to grant a divorce. We have not yet adopted no-fault divorce in Arkansas. The court of appeals did at least apply the principles of equity to the settlement of the personal property instead of accepting the harsh treatment of the appellant in the trial court and which is now adopted by this court. If I understand the meaning of equity, it has not been done by this court. I would at least award appellant $150,000 from the personal property.