{
  "id": 1621216,
  "name": "Donald C. DINGLEDINE v. Ninon Terez DINGLEDINE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Dingledine v. Dingledine",
  "decision_date": "1975-06-02",
  "docket_number": "75-27",
  "first_page": "204",
  "last_page": "207",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "258 Ark. 204"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "523 S.W.2d 189"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "244 Ark. 503",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8721152
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/244/0503-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "244 Ark. 709",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8722867
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/244/0709-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "246 Ark. 502",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1604104
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/246/0502-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "357 P. 2d 1112",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        10502449
      ],
      "year": 1961,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/p2d/357/1112-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "222 Ore. 505",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Or.",
      "case_ids": [
        4893483
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1960,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/or/222/0505-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "125 N.E. 2d 816",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1955,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "125 Ind. App. 596",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ind. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        1357748
      ],
      "year": 1955,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ind-app/125/0596-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "218 Ark. 215",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1611970
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1951,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/218/0215-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "251 Ark. 63",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1633347
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/251/0063-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "24 Ark. L. Rev. 275",
      "category": "journals:journal",
      "reporter": "Ark. L. Rev.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "7 S.W. 2d 783",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "year": 1928,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "177 Ark. 613",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8723726
      ],
      "year": 1928,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/177/0613-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 426,
    "char_count": 5101,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.81,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.1492641378181262e-07,
      "percentile": 0.768309851269321
    },
    "sha256": "da34f35329e114622d5ab6a85ddb1bdd7b71930a9ab9a93d720a98e377606f45",
    "simhash": "1:d37549e6c0e6d750",
    "word_count": 875
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:03:57.275817+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Byrd, J., would reduce the alimony to $50 a month."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Donald C. DINGLEDINE v. Ninon Terez DINGLEDINE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "George Rose Smith, Justice.\nThese parties were married on December 14, 1973, and separated about 100 days later, on March 23, 1974. Separate suits for divorce, both on the ground of personal indignities, were filed on the same day and later consolidated for trial. The chancellor granted a divorce to the wife, sustained the validity of an antenuptial agreement by which each spouse relinquished all interest in the other\u2019s property, and awarded the wife permanent alimony of $250 a month. By appeal the husband seeks a reduction in the amount of alimony; by cross-appeal the wife contends that the antenuptial agreement was contrary to public policy and therefore void.\nWe turn first to the cross-appeal. Mrs. Dingledine argues, on the authority of Oliphant v. Oliphant, 177 Ark. 613, 7 S.W. 2d 783 (1928), that the agreement was made to provide for the possibility of a divorce and is accordingly invalid. (See also Nelson, Divorce and Annulment, \u00a7 13.22 [2d ed., 1945]; Cathey, Ante-Nuptial Agreements in Arkansas \u2014 A Drafter\u2019s Problem, 24 Ark. L. Rev. 275 [1970].)\nWe cannot sustain that contention. As we explained in Hughes v. Hughes. 251 Ark. 63, 471 S.W. 2d 355 (1971), the Oliphanl principle applies when the agreement is to be effective only in case there should be a divorce. In Hughes we upheld the contract even though it was to be controlling in the event of a divorce, because that was not its only purpose. In the case at bar the agreement makes no reference whatever to the possibility of divorce. The testimony about the parties\u2019 intentions is in conflict. We think the chancellor was right in finding the antenuptial contract to be valid.\nOn cross-appeal the appellee further contends that the agreement should be construed to deprive her of an interest in her husband\u2019s property only in the event of his death and not in the event of a divorce. The language of the agreement, however, does not support that interpretation. It recites that the prospective wife accepts the provisions of the contract \u201cin lieu of all rights which she would otherwise acquire, by reason of the marriage, in the property or estate of Donald G. Dingledine.\u201d If the contract is valid \u2014 and we hold that it is \u2014 its effect is not abrogated by a divorce. Lindey, Separation Agreements and Ante-Nuptial Contracts, \u00a7 90-18A (1967). In fact, that was our holding in Hughes v. Hughes, supra. We find it unnecessary to discuss the appellee\u2019s other objections to the contract and affirm the decree on cross-appeal.\nOn direct appeal Dingledine insists that the allowance of $250 a month as alimony is excessive, in view of his ability to pay. Coltharp v. Coltharp. 218 Ark. 215, 235 S.W. 2d 884 (1951). According to Dingledine\u2019s federal income tax return, his net income from his service station business in 1973 was $3,-181.31, but he admits that owing to depreciation and other factors he received more than that amount from the business. He estimated his income in 1974 as being from $500 to $1,000 a month, but he feared that gasoline shortages might have an adverse effect. He supports two minor sons by an earlier marriage. Mrs. Dingledine is an experienced bookkeeper and, according to her brief, is earning $200 a month. She has no dependents. That the marriage lasted only a few months is a circumstance to be considered. Ferguson v. Ferguson, 125 Ind. App. 596, 125 N.E. 2d 816 (1955); Thompson v. Thompson, 222 Ore. 505, 353 P. 2d 241 (1960); Taylor v. Taylor, 357 P. 2d 1112 (Wyo., 1961). Upon the testimony as abstracted it is our best collective judgment that the award of alimony should be modified by a reduction to $150 a month.\nIn closing, we cannot overlook the fact that the appellant\u2019s attorney, who represented him at most of the hearings below and continues to represent him here, took the witness-stand and testified about points of fact that were disputed by the appellee. We have repeatedly admonished the members of our bar against such conduct. Montgomery v. First Nat. Bank of Newport, 246 Ark. 502, 439 S.W. 2d 299 (1969); Old American Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor. 244 Ark. 709, 427 S.W. 2d 23 (1968); Rushton v. First Nat. Bank of Magnolia, 244 Ark. 503, 426 S.W. 2d 378 (1968). Since those decisions the principle has again been stated in the American Bar Association\u2019s Code of Professional Responsibility, adopted by this court by per curiam order on June 2, 1969. The new Code observes: \u201cAn advocate who becomes a witness is in the unseemly and ineffective position of arguing his own credibility. The roles of an advocate and of a witness are inconsistent; the function of an advocate is to advance or argue the cause of another, while that of a witness is to state facts objectively.\u201d Code, EC 5-9; also DR 5-101 B. We are unwilling to let such a violation of the Code pass unnoticed.\nModified and affirmed, with the appellee to be allowed a $300 attorney\u2019s fee.\nByrd, J., would reduce the alimony to $50 a month.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "George Rose Smith, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Richard P. Osborne, for appellant.",
      "John F. Jennings. for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Donald C. DINGLEDINE v. Ninon Terez DINGLEDINE\n75-27\n523 S.W. 2d 189\nOpinion delivered June 2, 1975\nRichard P. Osborne, for appellant.\nJohn F. Jennings. for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0204-01",
  "first_page_order": 242,
  "last_page_order": 245
}