Price v. Price

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Price v. Price

990 S.W.2d 514, 337 Ark. 372, 1999 Ark. LEXIS 205

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedApril 29, 1999

Docket98-368

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 990 S.W.2d 514 (Price v. Price) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Price v. Price, 990 S.W.2d 514, 337 Ark. 372, 1999 Ark. LEXIS 205 (Ark. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellant Virginia Sue Price moves for a rule on the clerk and shows the court the following facts. On June 17, 1997, a divorce decree involving the appellant and her husband, Charles Raymond Price, was signed by the trial court. On August 8, 1997, Charles Raymond Price died. On June 19, 1998, the divorce decree was entered of record, and on December 11, 1998, a notice of appeal was filed by the appellant.

The notice of appeal was clearly not filed within thirty days of the final decree as required by Ark. R. App. P.—Civil 4(a). The appellant, however, cites this court to the case of Childress v. McManus, 282 Ark. 255, 668 S.W.2d 9 (1984), for the proposition that the death of a party nullifies the validity of a subsequent divorce decree. We agree that that is the holding of the Childress case. In Childress, however, we also said: “It is not necessary to appeal from a void order because it never became effective. A void order is subject to collateral attack.” (Citing authority.) Childress, 282 Ark. at 258, 668 S.W.2d at 11.

The motion for rule on the clerk is denied. The appellant’s remedy, as stated in Childress, is to attack the void divorce decree collaterally.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Appellant Virginia Sue Price moves for a rule on the clerk and shows the court the following facts. On June 17, 1997, a divorce decree involving the appellant and her husband, Charles Raymond Price, was signed by the trial court. On August 8, 1997, Charles Raymond Price died. On June 19, 1998, the divorce decree was entered of record, and on December 11, 1998, a notice of appeal was filed by the appellant.

The notice of appeal was clearly not filed within thirty days of the final decree as required by Ark. R. App. P.—Civil 4(a). The appellant, however, cites this court to the case of Childress v. McManus, 282 Ark. 255, 668 S.W.2d 9 (1984), for the proposition that the death of a party nullifies the validity of a subsequent divorce decree. We agree that that is the holding of the Childress case. In Childress, however, we also said: “It is not necessary to appeal from a void order because it never became effective. A void order is subject to collateral attack.” (Citing authority.) Childress, 282 Ark. at 258, 668 S.W.2d at 11.

The motion for rule on the clerk is denied. The appellant’s remedy, as stated in Childress, is to attack the void divorce decree collaterally.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

990 S.W.2d 514, 337 Ark. 372, 1999 Ark. LEXIS 205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/price-v-price-ark-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack