Coker v. Coker

Because the majority should have taken the opportunity |10to overrule Rachel v. Rachel, 294 Ark. 110, 741 S.W.2d 240 (1987), rather than citing it with approval, I dissent.1 I recognize that the attorneys and the circuit court in this case could have relied on Rachel; however, it was quite clearly a rogue opinion which changed the law and basically rewrote the applicable statute.

We have repeatedly held that divorce is a creature of statute and can only be granted when statutory grounds have been proved and corroborated. See Oates v. Oates, 340 Ark. 431, 10 S.W.3d 861 (2000); Russell v.…