Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Grady v. Grady

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided March 21, 1988No. 88-4Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partTom Glaze, Justice

I dissent from that part of the majority’s decision that affirms the chancellor’s award of alimony in the sum of $10.00 per year. Obviously, the factors that justify an award of alimony were not existent here, see Alexander v. Alexander, 241 Ark. 741, 410 S.W.2d 136 (1967), or else the chancellor would have awarded a reasonable amount. The sole reason for the $10.00 award was to allow the chancellor to retain jurisdiction of this cause for the purpose of making an award of alimony in the future. The chancellor’s action was clearly contrary to Ford v. Ford, 272 Ark. 506, 616 S.W.2d 3 (1981),…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Ford v. FordSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1981
  2. Woods v. WoodsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1985
  3. Alexander v. AlexanderSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1967

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

Powered by the Exa API