{
  "id": 1668843,
  "name": "Frank HINGLE v. Mazie HINGLE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hingle v. Hingle",
  "decision_date": "1978-10-23",
  "docket_number": "78-93",
  "first_page": "442",
  "last_page": "444",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "264 Ark. 442"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "572 S.W.2d 395"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 238,
    "char_count": 2880,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.905,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0748045178824079e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5606896386623312
    },
    "sha256": "521627e97a88887b164cff8a99064257184fdec9902033bc9dc7dd18d767f205",
    "simhash": "1:9dfcd4fe356e18da",
    "word_count": 450
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:22:41.361067+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Byrd, J., dissents."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Frank HINGLE v. Mazie HINGLE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "George Howard, Jr., Justice.\nThis is an appeal from a decision in the Chancery Court of Crawford County awarding a divorce decree to appellee, and, among other things, approving a property settlement agreement executed between the parties, providing for the support and maintenance of the parties\u2019 minor children and alimony for the appellee.\nFor reversal, appellant has asserted six points which he contends require a reversal of the trial court\u2019s decree.\nWe are persuaded that appellant\u2019s first point for reversal, namely:\n\u201cThe trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the decree of October 18, 1977, since the appellee failed to comply with Arkansas Statutes Annotated Section 34-1207.1 and 34-1208 requiring proof of residency and corroboration of residency.\u201d\nhas merit, and we, therefore, reverse and remand this case to the trial court.\nArk. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 34-1207.1 (Repl. 1962) provides, in material part, as follows:\n\u201cHereafter, in uncontested divorce suits . . . [corroboration] of plaintiff\u2019s ground or grounds for divorce shall not be necessary nor required.\n''''This does not apply to proof as to residence which must be corroborated, as heretofore, ...\u201d (Emphasis supplied)\nIn reviewing the record before us, it is plain that appellee-plaintiff was the only witness that testified in her uncontested divorce action. There was no testimony to corroborate her testimony that she lived in Crawford County, Arkansas, for the statutory period required. We are not unmindful that we have emphasized that corroboration in an uncontested divorce case may be comparatively slight when it is clear that there is no collusion between the parties. But the problem that confronts us here is the fact that there is no testimony whatsoever to corroborate the appellee\u2019s testimony relative to residency.\nOf course, this record reflects that the appellee has filed two previous actions for divorce in the Crawford County Chancery Court, both of which were subsequently dismissed; and it is clear from the record that the parties purchased approximately 240 acres of real estate in Crawford County and constructed a dwelling house on this property; and that the appellant executed an entry of appearance and did not contest the divorce. However, we hold that this is not sufficient to comport with the statutory requirement inasmuch as an issue of residence deals directly with the authority, power and right of the trial court to act. Thus, the corroborating evidence, although relatively slight, should not be speculative and vague in scope. The question of residency is jurisdictional and may be raised at any stage of the divorce proceeding.\nReversed and remanded.\nByrd, J., dissents.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "George Howard, Jr., Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Stephen M. Sharum, for appellant.",
      "Sam Hugh Park, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Frank HINGLE v. Mazie HINGLE\n78-93\n572 S.W. 2d 395\nOpinion delivered October 23, 1978\n(In Banc)\n[Rehearing denied November 20, 1978.]\nStephen M. Sharum, for appellant.\nSam Hugh Park, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0442-01",
  "first_page_order": 470,
  "last_page_order": 472
}