Court Opinion

ID: 9681847
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:59:42.167603+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:36.195910
License: Public Domain

David Newbern, Justice, concurring. The majority opinion reaches the correct result, however, I find the discussion about tenancies by the entireties to be unnecessary and confusing. When funds owned by one spouse are deposited in a bank account held jointly with the other spouse, there is a strong presumption that the spouse who makes the deposit has transferred an interest in the funds to the other spouse by gift. Ramsey v. Ramsey, 259 Ark. 16, 531 S.W.2d 28 (1975). The presumption may be overcome by “clear, positive, unequivocal, unmistakable, strong, and convincing evidence” as Justice Fogleman wrote in the Ramsey case and as the majority opinion states here. We need only say that there was evidence of that type before the chancellor. As the presumption of gift was overcome, Donald Jackson owned no part of the money Emily Joy Jackson used to purchase the sister’s interest in the house. That interest fell within the “acquired in exchange” exception to marital property. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-12-315(b)(2). Holt, C.J., joins this opinion.