Court Opinion

ID: 9552684
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:15:13.4453+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:28:38.034187
License: Public Domain

DONALDSON, Justice,
specially concurring.
I concur with the majority conclusion that former I.C. § 32-706, 1945 Idaho Sess. Laws, ch. 125, § 2 p. 191, is unconstitutional. Orr v. Orr, 440 U.S. 268, 99 S.Ct. 1102, 59 L.Ed.2d 306 (1979). While ordinarily the Court should be hesitant to neutrally extend a statute to cure constitutional infirmities, such an extension seems in the best interests of fairness and justice under these circumstances. Our legislature for decades has had some form of alimony in effect and recently enacted a gender-neutral provision. I.C. § 32-705 (Supp.1982). By neutrally extending the statute to include needy husbands, our decision gives continued effect to the legislative purpose to provide alimony to needy wives. Orr v. Orr, 374 So.2d 895 •(Ala.Civ.App.1979); cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1060, 100 S.Ct. 993, 62 L.Ed.2d 738 (1980); Beal v. Beal, 388 A.2d 72 (Me.1978).
The retroactive effect of this decision should be limited to the instant case and those pending, if any, which raise the same issue; it should not apply retroactively to all preceding cases. See Rogers v. Yellowstone Park Co., 97 Idaho 14, 539 P.2d 566 (1975) (on rehearing); Thompson v. Hagan, 96 Idaho 19, 523 P.2d 1365 (1974).