Court Opinion

ID: 9548953
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:11:02.53672+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:19:40.033899
License: Public Domain

BURKE, Chief Justice,
with whom SHORTELL, Judge, joins, concurring.
Although I concur in the result, I would reach an issue that the majority finds it unnecessary to decide.
*168Appellant contends, in part, that the trial court’s award of permanent alimony (1) constitutes involuntary servitude and (2) denies him equal protection of the law. These “constitutional challenges,” discussed in part IIB of the majority opinion, may be viewed as part of appellant’s further contention that the alimony award is “void as against public policy.” 1 Unlike the majority, I would squarely address each of these challenges and hold them to be without merit.
Otherwise, I concur in the opinion of the court.

. See V.T.A., Inc. v. Airco, Inc., 597 F.2d 220, 224-25 (10th Cir.1979) (judgment may be "void" if fundamental constitutional rights violated); Crosby v. Bradstreet Co., 312 F.2d 483, 485 (2d Cir.1963) (order held "void” where it violated First Amendment).