Court Opinion

ID: 9767427
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:19:36.429313+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:31.204950
License: Public Domain

Paul YTard, Associate Justice (dissenting). In order to make clear my disagreement with the result reached by the majority it is necessary to consider the matter under two headings. One. It is my conviction that when Charles and Buby Killgo secured a divorce in 1954 after they had entered into a property settlement (approved by the court) according to the terms set out in the majority opinion, the settlement was final and amounted to a dissolution of the estate by the entirety. There certainly can be no doubt that this was the intention of Mr. Killgo, Mrs. Killgo, and the chancellor, and this was definitely true after the time for appeal had elapsed. It must be kept in mind that we are not here dealing with a temporal order such as an order for child support or alimony but we are dealing with property rights that have been fixed and are unchangeable except by agreement of the parties. As I interpret the majority opinion, it rests primarily, if not entirely, on the fact that the chancellor did not use certain "magic words” to dissolve the estate by the entirety. It is conceded, of course, that the chancellor did have power to dissolve the estate by the entirety in this instance because the estate came into being after the passage of Act 340 of 1947 (Ark. Stats. § 34-1215). In my opinion it was not necessary for the chancellor to make a specific finding that he was dissolving the estate by the entirety. I am firmly of the view that the decree in this case dissolved the estate by the entirety just as effectively as if the magic words had been used, and that view is supported by respectable authority. In the case of United States v. 48.9 Acres of Land, etc., 85 F. Supp. 133 (W. D. Ark.), this same question arose in connection with condemnation of certain lands at one time held as an estate by the entirety by a Mr. and Mrs. Cox. It appears that they were divorced and had a property settlement which in effect was an agreement to divide the proceeds from the sale of the land. The question presented for decision was whether or not the decree of the chancellor amounted to a dissolution of the estate by the entirety. The court decided that the estate had been dissolved and in my opinion the reasoning for that decision is pertinent and controlling here. Among other things the Court said: "... a reference to the divorce decree discloses that the parties themselves did dispose by agreement of the lands held by the entirety, and I know of no reason why that agreement, when approved by the Court in the divorce case, was not valid, and in my opinion, the decree of the Court, based upon the agreement of the parties recited therein, did vest the entire title to the lands in A. J. Cox. £ * * "It is true that the agreement did not specifically mention such an estate, but the agreement did include the identical lands here involved and it was clearly the intention of the parties to definitely and completely settle their respective rights and the title to the lands as between them. “Each understood the ownership and it was clearly their intention to dispose of the estate by the entirety, which as above stated, could have been done by the execution of a deed, but the parties chose to settle the matter by agreement. . . . ” Incidentally, that estate by the entirety was created before 1947 and so that chancellor had no power to dissolve without the consent of the parties. To the same effect is the decision of Sheldon v. Waters, 168 F. 2d 483 (5th Cir. 1948), which interpreted the statute dealing with the dissolution of estates by the entirety in the State of Florida. The District Court, in effect, held that an approved agreement to terminate the estate by the entirety in property held by a man and wife was not operative or effective, but the Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision using the following language pertinent to this case: “We conclude there was some sort of agreement between Mr. and Mrs. Waters, for there was conduct by one inconsistent with the continuance of the tenancy by the entirety, acquiesced in by the other. ’ ’ Two. In my opinion it is immaterial in this case that the land was to be sold when the husband and wife agreed on a price. Any other view would make it possible for either one of them to defeat the entire property settlement by refusing to be agreeable. It can hardly be argued that if one party refused to agree, the other party could not have redress in a court of equity. In this case the wife (whose heirs were awarded all of the land) went into court and asked to have the agreement enforced, seeking only her one-half. This amounted to a recognition on her part that the property settlement was binding on both of them. This was the effect of the holding in the case of Taylor v. Taylor, 153 Ark. 206, 240 S. W. 6, where the Court said: ' ‘ She does not seek to have that decree set aside, hut on the contrary seeks to uphold it. It was for her benefit, and she can not consider it valid for one purpose and invalid for another. She must accept or reject it in its entirety. ’ ’ In the case of Graham v. Graham, 199 Ark. 165, 133 S. W. 2d 627, it was pointed out that in a divorce suit between Charlie Graham and Mattie Graham, the court ordered the home place to be deeded by the husband to the wife. Apparently the deed had never been executed and in considering this point, the Court said: “If Chas. G. Graham was directed by the court to deed the property to Mattie Graham, and there was no timely appeal from such order, title would vest without further formality, the deed being only the evidence or muniment of that which had been done.” The above case has been cited with approval in Person v. Johnson, 218 Ark. 117, 235 S. W. 2d 876, and Cook v. Cook, 233 Ark. 961, 349 S. W. 2d 809. It is my conclusion, therefore, that it is immaterial that the agreement to sell the property and divide the proceeds had not been carried out in. the case under consideration. Based on the reasoning in the cases just cited, chancery court, being a court of equity, will treat that which ought to have been done as having been done. Johnson, J., joins in this dissent.