Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Pelts v. Pelts

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided March 16, 2017No. CV-16-151Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partCourtney Hudson Goodson, Justice

I disagree with the majority’s decision to reverse the circuit court’s division of appellant Gregory Pelts’s military retirement pay pursuant to the parties’ divorce. Thus, I must dissent from that portion of the opinion.

During the divorce proceeding, appellee Shelly Pelts’s entitlement to a marital portion of Gregory’s military retirement was the primary issue in dispute. Shelly testified that she was entitled to one-half of the marital portion of Gregory’s military retirement benefits based on the fact that he had served in the military throughout their entire twenty-] 7three-year marriage.…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Burns v. BurnsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1993
  2. Moore v. MooreSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2016
  3. Young v. YoungSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1986
  4. Askins v. AskinsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1986
  5. In Re the Marriage of BeckmanColorado Court of Appeals · 1990

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API