Legal Opinion · Dissent

Foster v. Foster

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided December 15, 2016No. CV-15-850Published

1DissentHoward W. Brill, Chief Justice

The award to Leah Foster cannot properly be categorized as rehabilitative alimony. Accordingly, I dissent.

Arkansas has long recognized a court’s authority to award alimony. See Ark. Rev. Stat., ch. 51, § 9 (1837). When a decree of divorce is entered, the circuit court shall make an order concerning alimony, if applicable, as is reasonable from the circumstances of the parties and the nature of the case. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-12-312(a)(l) (Repl. 2015).

IssThere is a clear distinction between “permanent” alimony and “rehabilitative” alimony. Permanent alimony is an award for continued maintenance…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Myrick v. MyrickSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1999
  2. Brown v. BrownSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1881
  3. Taylor v. TaylorSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2007
  4. Boyles v. BoylesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1980
  5. Kuchmas v. KuchmasSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2006

3 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