Court Opinion

ID: 9748855
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 16:15:34.354291+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:40.011631
License: Public Domain

ROBERT L. BROWN, Justice, dissenting. I would not send this case back for rebriefing just to include the hearing where Robin Roberts (now Yang) testified about her residency in Arkansas. My reason for concluding as I do is that rebriefing is not necessary. The jurisdictional issue raised is whether it is required by statute that Robin Yang reside in Arkansas for three months immediately before the divorce decree was entered on July 2, 2007. This issue is resolved by statutory interpretation and specifically by our interpretation of Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-12-S07(a)(l)(A) relating to the three-month requirement. Thus, if we can determine from the abstract and addendum that Robin Yang resided in Arkansas for a total period of three months before entry of the decree, even though not continuous, and that this is all the statute requires, that would be sufficient for us to find jurisdiction in the circuit court. | aThis is easily done based on what we have before us in the abstract and addendum. First, the corroborating witness for Ms. Yang, Kaye Lundgren, testified according to the abstract, “She [Ms. Yang] was residing in Pulaski County, Arkansas in 1999 and she has continued to reside in Pulaski County until the time that she moved to New York in November 2006.” In addition, the circuit judge found in his decree that the residency requirements under section 9-12-301 had been satisfied: The parties were married on August 23, 1997 and they have separated since on or before December 2, 2005. The plaintiffs [Ms. Yang’s] witness, Kaye Lund-gren, verified the plaintiffs residence in this county and state for the requisite periods of time, and her separation from the defendant [Mr. Roberts] for more than eighteen months. When we send a case back for rebrief-ing, it causes additional delay and expense to the appellant. For this reason, rebrief-ing should only be ordered when the essential facts cannot be gleaned from the brief as filed. Here, those facts are available to this court in the present brief. In short, the abstract and addendum set forth that Ms. Yang has resided in Arkansas for three months. For these reasons, I dissent.