Court Opinion

ID: 9539806
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:10:34.743374+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:21.896372
License: Public Domain

CARDINE, Chief Justice,
partially concurring and dissenting.
I concur in the opinion of the court except for that part holding that the district court abused its discretion because it entered judgment without a hearing and without
“adequate information regarding the nature and extent of the property of the parties, including specific information identifying the property, such as record ownership to titled or real property. Ad*595ditionally, in making an alimony award, the court must have information regarding the ability to pay.”
In this case the appellant steadfastly refused to give over to the wife and to the district court information consisting of income tax returns; financial statements; records pertaining to ownership of stocks, bonds, or cash; bank statements; information pertaining to assets of the marital estate in the possession of others; information pertaining to checking accounts; information pertaining to any assets in which the husband claimed an interest; life insurance policies; information pertaining to pension, profit sharing, and other retirement plans; and information pertaining to indebtedness owed to the husband.
I would hold that a hearing should be held at which the wife and husband might present their evidence. If the husband chooses not to appear or offer evidence, he is bound by the evidence received, and the court could enter an appropriate judgment based upon the only evidence available. Under the holding of the court as presently articulated, by refusing to disclose information, appellant can prevent forever entry of judgment.