Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Holden v. Holden
Citations: 269 Ark. 850; 601 S.W.2d 247; 1980 Ark. App. LEXIS 1247Docket: CA 80-73
Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas; June 25, 1980; Arkansas; State Appellate Court
The primary issue in this case centers on whether the divorce proceedings were uncontested due to the appellant's withdrawal of his amended answer and agreement for an uncontested divorce. The court determined that the divorce was indeed uncontested, rendering the issue of condonation moot. Initially, the appellant filed a general denial in response to the appellee's complaint alleging general indignities, later asserting a condonation defense based on a claimed two-day reconciliation. During a temporary support hearing on June 4, 1979, both parties testified regarding property and support. The appellant claimed cohabitation occurred after the suit was filed, while the appellee denied any reconciliation. The chancellor refrained from awarding temporary alimony due to legal uncertainties but established guidelines for property possession and farm operations. On July 16, 1979, the appellant's attorney sought to withdraw the general denial, stating an agreement on property division, explicitly noting no claim to the appellee's inherited property. The court confirmed that the appellant had chosen not to contest the divorce, and after hearing testimony, directed the appellee's counsel to prepare the final decree. A contempt hearing on September 17, 1979, revealed the appellant's misunderstanding of the agreement regarding inherited property. During this hearing, the new attorney for the appellant moved to reinstate the general denial, which the court denied. The appellant argued that the suit should be dismissed due to cohabitation evidence; however, this evidence was deemed irrelevant once he withdrew his answer and consented to the uncontested divorce. The appellant's claim that the court erred in not reinstating the general denial was unsupported by legal authority, leading the court to conclude there was no error in denying the motion, as it was unrelated to the case's merits. Furthermore, reinstating the general denial would not revive the previously withdrawn condonation defense.