Court Opinion

ID: 9764327
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:19:05.472969+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:55.845243
License: Public Domain

John I. Purtle, Justice, dissenting. I do not believe the majority realize the consequences of this opinion. I am in full accord with the opinion in Day v. Day, 281 Ark. 261, 663 S.W.2d 719 (1984). I note with interest the statement by the majority that “we are not laying down a rigid and inflexible rule for the future.” What does that statement mean? Will we follow it only in the present case or will we pick and choose when to apply it? I would follow the statute and our prior cases and hold to the plain and obvious wording that marital property is property acquired subsequent to the marriage. In my opinion a pension with no guarantee of any future payment is not acquired. By this opinion a wife is awarded a property interest in her husband’s pension. Her heirs will inherit her interest if she fails to survive him. This is more than the man’s own heirs are entitled to. They can expect absolutely nothing from the pension when the husband dies. This type of pension is not vested. If it were the type which had a cash loan, mortgage or surrender value it would be subject to division. This type of pension should.be considered for alimony and support money. Both the state and federal laws are designed to protect anyone who receives a court order for payments of part of such a pension. The laws are not geared to deal with heirs and relatives and it is doubtful that such an order is legal. The laws were no doubt intended to enforce alimony and support payments. It is my understanding that there is a guarantee of something like the amount contributed in civil service pension cases. Certainly any guaranteed amounts should be treated as marital property because such sums are vested within the meaning of Ark. Stat. Ann. § 34-1214 (Supp. 1983).