Court Opinion

ID: 9666529
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:18:35.846651+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:29.834936
License: Public Domain

Darrell Hickman, Justice, dissenting. I would affirm the decision of the chancellor in awarding the divorce. The majority, in my opinion, is essentially retrying the case. Normally in a close case, and this is indeed one, we affirm the findings of the chancellor unless they are clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Sowards v. Sowards, 243 Ark. 821, 422 S.W. 2d 693 (1968). We have, in my opinion, upheld similar decrees where the evidence of fault was slight and barely corroborated. Kirk v. Kirk, 218 Ark. 880, 239 S.W. 2d 6 (1951). Since I would affirm the chancellor’s findings on the grounds for divorce, I would then face the issues raised by the appellant-husband regarding the constitutionality of certain Arkansas statutes regarding property disposition in divorce cases. The Arkansas law provides that if the wife is awarded the divorce she must be given one-third of the husband’s real estate for life and one-third of the husband’s personal property absolutely. There is no similar provision in the event the husband is granted the divorce. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 34-1214 (Repl. 1962), The parties were both married before. During this marriage, according to evidence that is not really disputed, the appellee-wife had accumulated property of a value of about $100,000.00. Some was held in her name, and some jointly with her husband. The appellant had through diligence increased his property holdings. Undoubtedly the husband had contributed substantially to the wife’s increase of property. The chancellor correctly applied the Arkansas law and arbitrarily awarded the wife one-third of the husband’s real estate for her life and one-third of his personal property absolutely. The chancellor could not have awarded the husband any of the wife’s property, according to Arkansas law, and had to award the wife property simply because she was granted the divorce. Therein lies the obvious inequity and discrimination. The Arkansas law regarding property was enacted before the turn of the century and can no longer be defended historically or legally with any confidence. It clearly violates the Equal Protection Clauses of the Arkansas and the United States Constitutions. Ark. Const., Art. 2, § 3; U.S. Const., Amend. XIV, § 1. Parties marry, share their love, lives, fortunes and misfortunes. In divorce they should share equally the property they have accumulated during their marriage. Anything less is obviously unfair. I cannot say that the Arkansas law permitting alimony, child support and attorney’s fees for the wife is unconstitutional. The Arkansas statutes do not require the award of alimony, child support or attorney’s fees but authorize such awards depending upon the circumstances of the parties and the nature of the case. Ark. Stat. Ann. §§ 34-1210; 34-1211 (Repl. 1962). Not only are these statutes not unconstitutional on their face in my opinion, but historically there remains a need for such laws. Some women forsake education to become full-time homemakers. Alimony permits a court to correct any financial inequities because of the parties’ circumstances. In passing, it should be noted that the divorce laws in Arkansas in general are archaic and need revision. It would certainly be best if the legislature reviewed and revamped these laws so that they would not only meet constitutional tests but also be more suitable in assisting people to resolve their domestic disputes. I would remand this case for the court to enter an order which would fairly and equitably divide the parties’ property.