{
  "id": 6142032,
  "name": "Michael V. BRATCHER v. Gwendolyn F. BRATCHER",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bratcher v. Bratcher",
  "decision_date": "1982-06-30",
  "docket_number": "CA 81-407",
  "first_page": "250",
  "last_page": "251",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "5 Ark. App. 250"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "635 S.W.2d 278"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "271 Ark. 248",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1756170
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/271/0248-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "303 S.W.2d 576",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "227 Ark. 1063",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1705380
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/227/1063-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "235 Ark. 870",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1684785
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1962,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/235/0870-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "275 Ark. 193",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1753625
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/275/0193-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "621 S.W.2d 701",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1754968,
        1754996
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/274/0042-01",
        "/ark/274/0023-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "274 Ark. 23",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1754996
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/274/0023-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "273 Ark. 528",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8721317
      ],
      "weight": 5,
      "year": 1981,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "534"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/273/0528-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 183,
    "char_count": 2265,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.822,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.770845263994211e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4133233250278298
    },
    "sha256": "72f198d32bbcd16554203086c7357cb38159d5cc429278ee08215288f32e29e6",
    "simhash": "1:8778fb26b08fdd16",
    "word_count": 396
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:41:16.889106+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Michael V. BRATCHER v. Gwendolyn F. BRATCHER"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Melvin Mayfield, Chief Judge:\nThis is an appeal by Michael Bratcher from a divorce decree. The trial court found the parties owned their home as an estate by the entirety and gave appellee and the parties\u2019 minor child possession of the house with appellee being responsible for the mortgage payments and for the taxes and insurance.\nWe understand that the appellant contends the trial court erred in failing to order a sale of the home, although we are not sure of the basis of that contention. His one-page argument says the home is \u201cmarital property\u201d and under Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 34-1214 (Supp. 1981) \u201cit is mandated that this property be distributed at the time of the divorce.\u201d In support of this assertion the appellant cites Warren v. Warren, 273 Ark. 528, 623 S.W.2d 813 (1981) and Bachman v. Bachman, 274 Ark. 23, 621 S.W.2d 701 (1981). But Warren states, \u201cWe hold that Act 705 of 1979, \u00a734-1214 (Supp. 1979), is not applicable to property owned as tenants by the entirety.\u201d 273 Ark. at 534. And Bachman did not even involve an estate by the entirety.\nIn Russell v. Russell, 275 Ark. 193, 628 S.W.2d 315 (1982), the court said:\nSince the residence was owned by both parties as an estate by the entirety, it is not marital property which must be divided pursuant to Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 34-1214. Warren v. Warren, 273 Ark. 528, 623 S.W.2d 813 (1981). The award of possession of the home to Mrs. Russell as provided in the decree is a reasonable application of a well recognized equitable remedy and is consistent with the Appellant\u2019s request at trial. Schaefer v. Schaefer, 235 Ark. 870, 362 S.W.2d 444 (1962); Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, 227 Ark. 1063, 303 S.W.2d 576 (1975); see also Stevens v. Stevens, 271 Ark. 248, 608 S.W.2d 17 (1980).\nThe appellant is mistaken in his contention that Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 34-1214 required that the home owned as an estate by the entirety be sold at the time of the divorce. If he contends that the evidence does not support the chancellor\u2019s decision to award possession to the appellee and their minor child, we do not agree.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Melvin Mayfield, Chief Judge:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "James P. Massie, for appellant.",
      "/. R. Buzbee, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Michael V. BRATCHER v. Gwendolyn F. BRATCHER\nCA 81-407\n635 S.W.2d 278\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered June 30, 1982\nJames P. Massie, for appellant.\n/. R. Buzbee, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0250-01",
  "first_page_order": 272,
  "last_page_order": 273
}