Court Opinion

ID: 9569152
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:10:58.435684+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:49:35.860027
License: Public Domain

LEHMAN, Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I would affirm the ruling of the trial court in all respects. I, therefore, concur with the majority, with the exception of the reversal of the lump sum cash award to which I respectfully dissent.
The trial court ordered husband to pay $323,081.50 within 180 days from the date of judgment. The majority determined that requirement to be an abuse of discretion when a fair payment schedule could provide for interest to be paid to the wife. I am convinced that husband’s exhibit X-3, which reflects retained earnings in Bailey Enterprises, Inc. of $868,872, and Y-3, which reflects retained earnings in R & J Enterprises, Inc. of $240,124, totaling in excess of $1.1 million of retained earnings, disclose more than the necessary means to pay or otherwise obtain a lump sum cash payment to wife. This court now relegates wife to the position of an unsecured creditor of husband’s respective business enterprises — a position which, if we accept husband’s repeated proclamations, no *969matter how he pays the award, will force him into insolvency.