Court Opinion

ID: 9521882
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:14:38.455109+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:01:24.161887
License: Public Domain

PAUL E. DANIELSON, Justice, concurring. I agree that the circuit court’s award of payments to Andrea Russell should be affirmed; however, I take issue with the majority opinion failing to property characterize these payments. Clearly, they are not “alimony” in the traditional sense as it has long been established that “an award of alimony in fixed installments for a specified period is prima facie erroneous as being an award of a gross sum instead of a continuing allowance.” Webb v. Webb, 262 Ark. 461, 462, 557 S.W.2d 878, 879 112(1977) (citing Beasley v. Beasley, 247 Ark. 338, 445 S.W.2d 500 (1969); McIlroy v. McIlroy, 191 Ark. 45, 83 S.W.2d 550 (1935); Walker v. Walker, 147 Ark. 376, 227 S.W. 762 (1921); Brown v. Brown, 38 Ark. 324 (1881)). However, this court has acknowledged that, depending on the facts of a particular case, such a short-term award may be a proper method of allocating to the wife an interest in her husband’s property. See id. In the instant case, the circuit court used its discretion to do just that. However, it should not be confused with, nor subjected to the primary considerations given to, an award of alimony.