Court Opinion

ID: 9843442
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 02:39:15.35649+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:47.284062
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE SHEEHY,
concurring and dissenting:
I concur with all of the majority opinion, except that part which denies the wife interest on the deferred payments to be made by the husband to her.
There is an internal conflict in the order of the District Court and in the majority opinion on the subject of interest. The District Court found, and the majority agree, that the value of Kerrian’s, Inc., should be divided between husband and wife in the ratio of 51-49. Then the District Court provided that the husband should pay wife the 49% amounting to $97,785 over a period of time (calculated at 32.59 months) at the rate of $3000 per month without interest. Thus the husband will have the use of the wife’s funds over a 2!4 year period interest-free. I do not think the District Court, nor any member of the majority would see anything but injustice in such an arrangement if anyone of them were forced to the small end of the same deal. The value of the wife’s award has been decreased by at least $7,500 under the District Court’s order, and to me that is substantial enough to require fixing. I would reverse and remand for that single purpose.