Court Opinion

ID: 9772997
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:34:38.858603+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:49.633427
License: Public Domain

Darrell Hickman, Justice, concurring in part, dissenting in part. I essentially concur in the result but write to point out several problems with the majority opinion. First, I adhere to my views expressed in Day v. Day, 281 Ark. 261, 663 S.W.2d 719 (1984), on the matter of retirement plans. Second, I do not believe an “enhanced business career” can be “property” under Arkansas law; a contrary impression is left by the majority. Third, the majority miscites Strang v. Strang, 258 Ark. 139, 523 S.W.2d 887 (1975), to hold as a matter of law that the chancellor must order the parties to equally share in the costs of all repairs and maintenance to the house. That is a discretionary matter even under the new law and on remand, I would allow the chancellor to clear up the apparent inconsistencies in the decree. Fourth, I would point out that while the chancellor wrote a detailed letter carefully setting forth his findings, anytime there is less than an equal division of property the chancellor must give his reasons. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 34-1214 (Supp. 1983). In this case the chanellor undoubtedly used his discretion, as he should have, to fairly divide the property, but when these matters are appealed, we are confronted with the problem of finding reasons. If there are none, we must follow the statute and order an equal division on remand. Except for the order to the chancellor to enter a finding that the parties shall equally share in the repairs, I concur.