Magness Lake, in Heber Springs, is a magnet for swans
Additionally, some courts have confused the rule in Layman by weighing the efforts of the owning and nonowning spouse when determining whether nonmarital property should be reclassified as marital. Indeed, in this case the circuit court considered Nancy's contributions to the company, in addition to David's, in concluding that the increase in value in the company was a marital asset. This was erroneous even under Layman.
Accordingly, we find it appropriate to return to the statute's plain language, which states that "the increase in the value of properry acquired prior to marriage" is nonmarital. Accordingly, to the extent that Layman, Farrell, and Brown redefined marital property through the "active appreciation" rule, which conflicts with section 9-12-315, we expressly overrule them.
in this case, because the court has taken the statutory language and rewritten it to achieve a contrary result, we are compelled to serve justice by retuning to the statute's clear language.Brill countered, while also noting that the majority had overruled precedent though those appealing the decision had not asked for it:
Under the separation-of-powers doctrine, the legislature has the power and responsibility to proclaim the law through statutory enactments, and the judiciary has the power and responsibility to interpret legislative enactments. lt was up to the legislature to amend the statute if it disagreed with our interpretation declining to reverse our construction of the marital-property statute and leaving change, if any, in the word "property" to the General Assembly). The General Assembly has not done so, and this court should not act in its stead.Brill, in his dissent, quoted from a law review article, "Playing Cod: A Critical Look at Sua Sponte Decisions by Appellate Courts." The case today was a sua sponte decision, or one taken up unbidden on the majority's own accord.
Here, the circuit court did not make findings under section 9-12-315(a)(2) to justify a distribution of nonmarital property. Instead, the court considered it marital property. For these reasons, we reverse and remand for the circuit court to enter an order awarding David the growth of his business as his nonmarital property absent a specific statutory finding to justify any distribution to NancyJohn Moore had also challenged the judge's award of $5,000 monthly alimony until his ex-wife turned 65. The Supreme Court majority said this did not abuse discretion given factors cited, but said the lower court should reconsider alimony when it reconsiders property division because "property division and alimony [are] complementary devices that the circuit court may utilize in combination to make the dissolution of marriage equitable."
DBI, he could work very hard for that $20 and still wouldn't be able to…
Dear God help us all
Let local school districts decide.