Court Opinion

ID: 9563653
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:44:15.69744+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:59.690945
License: Public Domain

Justice Meyer
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The majority finds that all of the first eleven listed factors concern the “economy of the marriage.” Having so concluded, the majority, by the principle of ejusdem generis, construes factor (12), “Any other factor which the court finds to be just and proper” (emphasis added), to include only “economic fault.” I disagree that all of the other eleven factors relate to economic matters — for instance, factor (3) “The duration of the marriage . . .” which has nothing at all to do with “the economy of the marriage.”
Beyond the foregoing I believe that the legislature fully intended that the trial judge could and would consider what I shall call “moral” fault, or misconduct which causes the marriage to breakup — adultery, spouse abuse, alcoholism, drug abuse, incest, etc. Obviously, such misconduct would not fit within the narrow category of “economic” fault. If “moral” fault cannot be considered under factor (12), it cannot be considered at all in the distribution of marital property.
The majority implies that the proper arena for the consideration of non-economic fault is the determination of alimony payments. First, alimony, for one reason or another, is not always an issue before the court in divorce cases. Second, even when alimony is at issue, the “innocent” spouse may not be entitled to it because he or she is not a dependent spouse or has remarried, or for other reasons. In such situations, even the most egregious moral misconduct which has caused the marriage to end is without legal consequence and the equal distribution of marital property may have to be found equitable in spite of it. If the majority has thus incorrectly interpreted the legislature’s intent, that body can readdress the issue and speak more plainly.
I would also add that on reconsideration of this case upon remand, the trial judge could, under the majority’s interpretation, reach the same result by considering only factors constituting “economic” fault, such as factor (4).