Court Opinion

ID: 9662944
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:23:52.213627+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:44.121754
License: Public Domain

Dale Price, Justice, dissenting. I wholeheartedly agree with the majority that the appellee’s income has not been substantially reduced. I can even see a basis for concluding the appellant has not sought employment as fervently as she should. But I think the peculiar facts of this case and a fundamental sense of fairness require reversal. In the 1974 decree, the chancellor awarded Mrs. Bracken one-third of her husband’s separate property. But we reversed that portion of the award. As a result, Mrs. Bracken’s ability to better her standard of living and plan for her future was considerably reduced. She had been a housewife for 25 years, but was able to educate herself and obtain some employment. She is now 65 years old. To say that she must “fully utilize her education” at a time when Mr. Bracken is comfortably retiring and has had no change in income is unfair and disregards her 25 year contribution to the marriage. I respectfully dissent. Hays, J., joins the dissent.