{
  "id": 1630080,
  "name": "Lowell BYRD v. Christine BYRD",
  "name_abbreviation": "Byrd v. Byrd",
  "decision_date": "1972-03-27",
  "docket_number": "5-5828",
  "first_page": "202",
  "last_page": "203",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "252 Ark. 202"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "478 S.W.2d 45"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "49 N. E. 2d 8",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1943,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "290 N.Y. 251",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.Y.",
      "case_ids": [
        2056075
      ],
      "year": 1943,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ny/290/0251-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "159 S.W. 2d 4",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "year": 1942,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "289 Ky. 570",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ky.",
      "case_ids": [
        2727774
      ],
      "year": 1942,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ky/289/0570-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "126 P. 2d 130",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.2d",
      "year": 1942,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "52 Cal. App. 2d 359",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Cal. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        4652919
      ],
      "year": 1942,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/cal-app-2d/52/0359-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "230 Ark. 580",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1700118
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1959,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/230/0580-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "241 Ark. 374",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1723862
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/241/0374-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 257,
    "char_count": 2986,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.807,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.1507629086898903e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7684751118694565
    },
    "sha256": "d5209d0f32ecbb804a87e1bb7672b22d7f1910ee406f1a6839ddcd826a4eda18",
    "simhash": "1:1b4d784b8caf1960",
    "word_count": 533
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:11:02.058798+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Byrd, J., not participating."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Lowell BYRD v. Christine BYRD"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "George Rose Smith, Justice.\nIn 1966 the appellant, Lowell Byrd, obtained a divorce from the appellee and was directed to pay alimony in the amount of $150 a month. Byrd v. Byrd, 241 Ark. 374, 407 S.W. 2d 731 (1966). In 1971 Byrd filed the present petition, asking that he be relieved from any further obligation to pay alimony, on the ground that Mrs. Byrd was assertedly living with another man as husband and wife. This appeal is from the chancellor\u2019s refusal to modify the prior award.\nByrd relies for relief upon our cases holding that upon a divorced wife\u2019s remarriage her former husband is entitled to apply to the court for an order terminating the alimony payments. The reason for the rule was stated in Wear v. Boydstone, 230 Ark. 580, 324 S.W. 2d 337 (1959): \u201cWe have no quarrel with the statement that alimony payments should cease upon the divorced wife\u2019s remarriage, for we see no logic in requiring a first husband to contribute at regular intervals to an ex-wife whose care and maintenance has been assumed by a second husband.\u201d\nIt is apparent that the reason for the rule which we have adopted in cases of remarriage does not apply in this instance, for there is no indication that Mrs. Byrd\u2019s supposed paramour has assumed any responsibility for her care and maintenance. Nor is it shown by the weight of the proof in the case at bar that Mrs. Byrd has assumed the other man\u2019s name and held herself out publicly as his wife. In that extreme situation at least two courts have approved a termination of the former husband\u2019s obligation to pay alimony. Grant v. Grant, 52 Cal. App. 2d 359, 126 P. 2d 130 (1942); Coggins v. Coggins, 289 Ky. 570, 159 S.W. 2d 4 (1942). In New York the same result has been reached by statute. Waddey v. Waddey, 290 N.Y. 251, 49 N. E. 2d 8 (1943).\nIn the court below the evidence was in sharp conflict. Even if we should accept Byrd\u2019s contention that he and his supporting witnesses established instances of immorality on the part of Mrs. Byrd, we are not prepared to say that a former husband is entitled to sit in judgment of his divorced wife\u2019s conduct, any more than she is entitled to take such a position with respect to his conduct. Upon the former appeal we increased the chancellor\u2019s award of alimony because Mrs. Byrd was shown to be a hopeless cripple who was incapable of supporting herself. There is no showing that her condition has changed. To the contrary, Mrs. Byrd\u2019s sister testified that she had given money to Mrs. Byrd for years: \u201cI gave it to her because she had to have it. She had no money to live [on] and nothing to eat and nothing [with which] to buy any clothes.\u201d Upon the proof as a whole we cannot say that the chancellor\u2019s decision to deny Byrd\u2019s application for relief is against the preponderance of the evidence.\nAffirmed.\nByrd, J., not participating.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "George Rose Smith, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "FredA.Newth, Jr., for appellant.",
      "Hall, Tucker ir Lovell, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Lowell BYRD v. Christine BYRD\n5-5828\n478 S.W. 2d 45\nOpinion delivered March 27, 1972\nFredA.Newth, Jr., for appellant.\nHall, Tucker ir Lovell, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0202-01",
  "first_page_order": 226,
  "last_page_order": 227
}