*1 318 & GORDON Watson McDEARMON
Cleo Attorneys GREMILLION Ervin & Bеngel, 2d 5-4944 445 S. W. delivered October Opinion Boyce, appellant. & Bowie for ap- Bengel, Erwin & & Gremillion pellees. appeal
Carleton Harris, Chief Justice. This relates *2 validity to the of a fee contract in a domestic George relations case. On November Mc- 14, 1967, W. County, Dearmon, resident of Ar- Jackson Shoffner, kansas, suit instituted divorce the Jack- absolute County against Chancery son Court his wife, Cleo appellant Watson a resident of McDearmon, herein, general indignities pursued alleging Louisiana, to the extent as to render Mrs. condition in life his intolerable. already McDearmon suit in had instituted a Louisiana separation legal through attorney, her Gor- Amos K. practiced Rouge don, Parish, who law East Jr., Batоn Shortly filing Mr. McDearmon’s Louisiana. after the complaint, an Mrs. McDearmon retained services of 1967, Arkansas law and on November firm, 29, firm, denying allegations filed an answer, of the husband’s asserting complaint, part and desertion on of Mr. physical McDearmon, as well as further abuse. was alleged plaintiff that, if mistreatment toward the part, her existed on had for- same been condoned and given by they Mr. and had since McDearmon, cohabited, good and she had been wife. It further asserted property parties, that considerable was owned having acquired together they been hus- while lived as band and wife the statе of a state with Louisiana, community property that the law; consisted personalty realty. prayed of both he and that she She given personal property, one-half of and one-half realty, specifically pleading and the mentioned personal property presently number of items of located Subsequently, the state of Arkansas. Mc- after Mr. complaint, appellant Dearmon amended his her amended asking and filed a answer, he counterclaim, she awarded an absolute divorce. April,
Around the middle 1968, McDearmon dismissed the law told firm, Arkansas Mr. Gordon Newport attorney, that a Claudе M. been Erwin, had recommended to and Mr. her, Gordon called Erwin, April retained him. On 22, Mrs. McDearmon, letter, every- attorney, “because her as dismissed Mr. accom- nothing been dragging had thing been had May According appellant, plished.” Gordon, representation. requested him resume previously been dis- lawyer had that he testified any pay, he, therefore, four times without missed agreed attorney met if two she resume her conditions. From the record: I not consider Mrs. McDearmon that would
“I told gave representation me resuming unless she up power and ne- here unrestricted to come prop- negotiate gotiаte, I could, if a settlement of *3 erty; just negotiate but also the settlement to also, experience sign to because I had too much it, had her vacillation.
**“* other which met was condition she employment give that con- me a in and, she contract of go to I down limit which could tract, bottom negotiating was set forth.” agreed and it conditions, McDearmon to these
Mrs. employment that occasions liti- is this provisions agreement, gation. employment The follows: aside from formal are as recitations, attorney parties being client and “That hereto, joint matter known conclude that at a to law; еffort ‘George Me- Watson as W. McDearmon versus Cleo Chancery in the Court Jack- DearmonNumber County, hereby agree as follows: Arkansas, son do give to
1) McDearmon shall Cleo Mrs. Watson power of irrevocable Amos Gordon, Jr., K. prop- thirty days to enter into thereof, date George erty McDear- husband, W. settlement with may, agent such terms conditions as said mon necessary, desirable deem in his sole discretion, and/or provided that the min- proper however, convenient, or which settlement imum under said amount hy shall Mrs. Cleo McDearmon shall he received Watson ($480,- Eighty sum be the of Four Hundred Thousand 000.00) Dollars.
2) parties hereby agree The do hereto negotiations, manner in which are conducted same persons negotiations, conducting well as said present negotiations, tak- at or not as those ing part whether solely K. be Amos same, shall determined procedures judgment Jr., and as to such Gordon, participation negotiations at & attendance said being part shall con- be these conditions final, agrees Gordon, for which K. sideration said Amos Jr. represent to continue McDearmon Watson Mrs. Cleo in this matter. agreed
3) settlement should is further contemplated McDear- Cleo Watson executed, Forty рay Jr., mon K. a fee of Gordon, will Amos * * ($45,000) *.” Five Thousand & Dollars, no/100 agreement shall sets further attorneys negotiate pay compromise two represented Rouge, formerly at Baton who Louisiana, *4 provided: Mrs. It then McDearmon. Gordon, K. Amos
“In the efforts of event that all property attorney, settlement should to secure .a Jr., compensated attorney at rate of shall be fail, said spent per ($30.00) Thirty the time hour for Dollars from October McDearmon Mrs. behalf of Cleo Watson representa- of his the date of termination to compensation expenses all to to addition be this tion, pursuit Watson Cleo of Mrs. affairs incurred McDearmon.” signеd by Mc- and Mrs.
The instrument was Rouge, May Louisiana. at Baton 13, 1968, Dearmon agree- pursuant to this that, testified Mr. Gordon 32-2 he
ment, a settlement conference with counsel arranged with McDearmon, together on June and, 3, 1968, Mr. attorney, went McDearmon’s Erwin, Mr. to office of ap- to the negotiated settlement, subject and a tentative that proval providing this settlement McDearmon, McDearmon value Mrs. would receive this he to discuss $481,976.50. lawyer The said tried it. sign settlement but she to appellant, with refused empowered agreement power Although (under into Mrs. to enter attorney McDearmon) executed by the settlement not done because could himself, that stipulated it had developed McDearmon Mr. Gordbn, must it. appellant sign herself According told when approve settlement, appellant refusing him that she Erwin as her attorney. had also dismissed by
About 17, 1968, discharged June Gordon was Mrs. McDearmon, telephone and he call received Mr. appel- McDearmon’s him that counsel, informing lant had come to office (McDearmon’s attorney) without her, with representation, husband being two had agreed upon a settlement.1 appel the settlement appears obtained lant similar testified to that which Mr. Gordon very Mr. Er presented Thereafter, he Mrs. McDearmon.2 court that he informed the 1McDearmon’s testified McDearmon, requested appointment of the from Mr. and Mrs. they- office, stating had reached to his the two came notes, copy agreement, and he was furnished a hand-written item, Mc- them, agreement item their went over questioned did very carefully that she about the fact Dearmon was representation. want compromise appellee’s brief, the two asserted that 2In stating: appellees substantially identical, agreements were “* ** com- being only the Gordon that under difference cash, of all of appellant one-half promise, received would have com- e., $46,324.33 McDearmon approximately while under i. $32,000.00.” promise, received she *5 McDearmon, Mrs. by Mrs. disputed and Mr. both was This by was arranged Gordon stating the settlement that McDearmon Mc- Mr. $480,000.00, and the minimum $43,000.00 than less about Mr. proposed Gordon settlement that, the testifying under Dearmon setting petition behalf the done on out work win filed a was appellant Mrs. and fact that the McDearmon unhappy an order be that his he asked services; responsibilities, al relieving Mm from further entered leged rendered the services the value of that reasonable by was entitled that he him and asserted $1,000.00, was subject properties mat the wMch lien were on the compromise filed a Gordon also ter the settlement. upon petition, heretofore based the contract similar appellee gave quoted, that he notice this likewise and claiming property. both 21, June a lien on On was a waiver and executed McDearmon McDearmon Mrs. entry appearance, 1968, a 26, and and on June awarding appellant an di was absolute decree entered approving the from Mr. and further McDearmon, vorce separation agreement entered and settlemеnt parties court into on 1968. The between June appellee discharged fully further that found was entitled McDearmon, and duties counsel Mrs. as pay that contracted to $45,000.00 Mm, she upon properties received a lien Gordon should have approved by the decree a settlement and McDearmon’s further found was court. attorneys original $15,000.00 to a Arkansas were entitled (of paid), already fee wMch been had $500.00 attorneys due these $14,500.00 balance of was $45,000.00 Erwin had been sum4; that Mr. further, paid retained from Gordon, and the former should be attorney. From de fee awarded Louisiana this point appeal. Only cree so comes one this entered, upon, enforcing relied the court vis., erred agreement. questions There are two obtained, $436,213.88, had Mrs. McDearmon would have received $44,000.00 which demand. less than the minimum actually signed August and was 3The decree was en pro tered nunc tunc as of June 26. court, at appeal lodged Arkansas 4After torneys asking be removed their names filed a motion appellees designation proceedings case, further their in the gave motion, granting stricken; entered an order this court judgment the trial attorneys record to release the leave to the court.
324 to a рroceed determined in tbis and we litigation, ‘‘ state, which the first, of which is law of discussion As is Louisiana, controlling?” pointed Arkansas or L. 50 A. E. 2d 258: a “The view con- adopted is that general unless the of expressed law trary contract, intention the is the the place performance ques- of of contract governs tion terminat- it breached or otherwise whether has been repudiated.”5 ed or In taken this view.6 definitely has very
Arkansas Sizer v. Midland Valley 141 Ark. Company, Railroad court 369, 6, 217 S. W. said: it is insisted that the contract was made “Finally, without for that reason not enforceable. the State and is But little the need be of regard said with this рhase case. The contract per it was to be contemplated formed in and the suit brought was in fact Arkansas, here. Therefore of this Arkan the law contract was sas. Midland Rd. v. Moran Bolt Nut Manu Valley & Co. Co.,
facturing 399. In that case court held the Ark. that a contract to be the is construed with reference to law of place of and not of the of performance law the place where it was originated.” relating governs 5The other two rules to what men law are Pages 260, being place tioned on 259 and one the law of the where into, being the contract was entered and the other of “center gravity” theory. first, find: Relative to the “Whether there is we depends frequently upon a breach of construction of the contract applied the contract. In this the courts sometimes situation governed of the law rule that the construction of a contract is second, place is As to the where contract was made.” origin, theory comparatively called “Under a of recent stated: theory gravity’ ‘grouping the con or ‘center contacts’ regarding laws, courts, as conclusive instead of flict parties’ performance contracting place or intention or the place contract, lay emphasis upon ‘which has law of the rather ” dispute.’ significant the most matter contacts is con 6Appellees argument law no which state’s make as to was valid trolling, contending only into contract entered under both law. Arkansas and Louisiana Petroleum also Crown, Corporation Central
See Chancellor, where Speer, 174 S. W. 2d Ark. we said: to be
“The rule that such general *7 per- reference the of the place construed with law it was ‘and not of the law of the where formance, place ” originated.’ though In it is obvious us, quite that, the case before it in to be executed agreement Louisiana, the Arkаnsas in in McDearmon was performed Arkansas. Mr. in Ar- the were except homeplace, for all assets and, in Ar- kansas. divorce was to heard the case be Mainly, and ap- Gordon kansas, and contract itself between the pellant recites: attorney client hereto, being
“That the parties known at that matter law, joint effort to conclude Mc W. McDearmon ‘George versus Cleo Watson as Dearmon, Court Jack Chancery Number 5539 * * son follows: Arkansas, agree do County, hereby as ap- think it clear that Arkansas law should
We is the second question, This us to which is brings ply. determination. or main question presented for principal Mc- contract between Appellant asserts public pol- Dearmon Mr. is against void as is set forth unenforceable. rule icy, and therefore A. L. in 30 follows: R. as arise
“It the law when is differences policy that no obstacle should between to a parties marriage Consequent- be their way reconciliation. placed interest of it is not be should for ly, fitting If an there be no reconciliation. should attorney is compensation contingent services attorney’s the amount of a or if be divorce, securing the amount of paid for his services proportioned is alimony7 posi- attorney to be in such received, the against tion interest would his reconciliation parties. payment to an attor- “A contract of a fee ney, contingent upon procuring a divorce for his upon contingent ali- client or mony the amount of amount policy.” against public to be obtained, void as including Arkansas, A number of listed, are states following though slight mod- have been rule, there in some of these ifications states. (District
In Florida case v. Maresco Sobieski Appeal District), Court of S. 2d Third Florida, (1962), Chancellor held “illegal, between client void, and unen *8 against public policy.” appellate court, forceable as reviewing on the trial court said: decision, presented appeal principal is the
“The issue this validity contingent agreement of a fee a matrimonial in nor briefs, action. Neither excellent counsel, their by independent have discovered court, research, this appear, directly point. Florida decision does jurisdictions have a other number of however, passed validity agreement an and on the of such employment universally almost contracts declared such decree, review, void. The chancellor’s here under attorneys’ opinion majority cоn- accord with tingent employment actions contracts in matrimonial against public policy unenforceable. are and therefore McCarthy Santangelo (1951), 410, 78 v. 137 See: Conn. (1958), N. E. A. 2d In re Fisher 2d 153 240; 139, 15 Ill. Dannenberg (1940) Dannenberg Kan. 151 2d v. 832; (1956) 667; P. 2d Baskerville v. Baskerville 100 600, Nebraska N. ex rel. 762; Minn. 75 2d State 496, 246 W. word, cited, “alimony,” used also 7In of the cases some property the husband a owned to include division wife.
327 (1960), Bar State Ass’n v. Jensen 171 N. 1, 105 W. Neb. 2d (1953), 459; re In Smith 42 188, Wash. 2d 254 P. 2d Attorneys 464, 5 Am. Jur., at Law, § A. 166; 30 L. it. 189. appears good why
There to be no reason Florida should join agreements those states which hold such void and unenforceable.”8 years ago (1900), many
The state of California, a held such vоid unenforceable against public policy. Freitas, P. Newman v. 61 Keough, Krieger (1931). Theison v. 1 2d et al P. In Bulpitt, case, v. 251 P. 2d a rather (1953), unusual into in a divorce entered the defendant action husband agreement attorneys contingent ar an under ap they rangement should receive 10% (but praised in no him value of all secured than be less more case should the fee than nor $5,000.00, $7,500.00). $5,000.00 minimum, The court allowed distinguishing Theison, Newman case from pointed subsequent being case in the differences Kary, Reporter There, 712. Coons California v. explained court that: * *
“* Bulpitt, Krieger 251 P. 2d 40 Cal. judgment fee contract based on 2d 273, impoverished to dе- attorneys husband between upheld, against attack of a divorce suit fend Krieger third-party But the the husband. creditor of respects present important from the case differed contest unlike wife did not husband, here, case: *9 legality defend, the contract was to the of the contract; prosecute, and the amount action; a divorce not to only judgment minimum the the contract covered the on 94, Jean, 2d 1965, in Salter v. St. 170 S. 8 In the same court employment agreement and client between held that an separate property only recovery the to which related valid, stating: spe- by approve the chancellor distinction made the “We contingent agreements in relations cifically domestic fee that hold they policy against public as re- litigation and unenforceable are thereof, lieu support in alimony settlement or or late to they return to the when relate same are enforceable but property.” separate a wife’s recovery. contingent not include retainer did ruling the determined in the case Thus, particular not on its face, contract was void thp collaterally judgment at- he contract could not party (40 2d 251 P. 101, 2d at tacked a third Cal. 673), perhaps at undеr that the minimum retainer aspect separable contingency the contract independently of the contract and enforceable.” stating: holdings, The court its reaffirmed earlier contingent “Although against the broad statements fee in matrimonial causes in Newman contracts Freitas, 129 61 P. A. 907, Cal. R. L. express qualified, they policy is still
been somewhat supra, policy explained Keough, valid, a in Theison v. * * designed discourage to of an the activities separate interloper might, by in- who of a reason community, proceeds in be dividual interest ** *’ spouses. widen tempted to between the breach justification the usual “Moreover, representation legal they assure which contracts, apply would not di- otherwise be to available, does party can causes, vorce where the without funds attorney’s fees court.” awarded public policy relative divorce was California’s stated as follows: furthering di-
“A interest divorce financial preserv- public rectly contrary policy California’s period waiting ing marriages, policy reflected interlocutory follows of divorce which decree opportunity designed provide last and which is entry spouses reconciled before the to become decree.” final entering practice con
Unquestionably, into nearly tingent all is condemned cases divorce fees *10 it has herein, the authorities In reciting jurisdictions.9 con such the extent to which purpose to show been our back nationwide.10 As far disapproved have been tracts In McConnell same this court view. adopted 1911, McConnell, 931, quoting 98 Ark. 136 S. W. v. 194, we Westerman, supra, case of Jordan Michigan v. said:
‘‘ fam- Public in maintaining policy is interested that such the interests of society requiring ily relation, be not families shall severed,, relation lightly from un- not be broken causes or up inadequate for arisen worthy motives; and where have differences threaten good which disruption, public welfare and the of a society demand or reconciliation, practicable pos- if sible; and, to reasons, these tends which such a prevent reconciliation is void.’*11 Appellees our but assert recognize view, of fee appellees depend upon did not success of litigation, the contract accordingly, con- From tingent. the brief: states, though holding most contingent 9While provi fee invalid, do recovery sion the' allow on the basis meruit, quantum recovery some will states not even allow that 496, type Baskervillе, v. in this of case. Baskerville Minn. See 762; (Mich.), 75 N. W. 2d Jordan 826. v. Westerman 28 N. W. cases, p.7, 2d For other related see 100 ALR 1391. § Association, August meeting 10The American at its Bar last 12, 1969, adopted replace Responsibility” of Professional “Code Ethics,” the old.“Canons of such on Jan code become effective
uary canons, 1, This is a 1970. code divided into nine and there 2-20, relating comprehensive discussion Under of each. Canon EC contingent arrangements, stated, fee human it is “Because relationships proceedings, unique involved and the character rarely arrangements are in domestic cases relation justified.” Kary, 11Similаrly policy to the California stated Coons Arkansas, marriages, supra, too, policy preserving as re has a Assembly such Acts 47 348 of General flected days period the com waiting of 30 between providing acts decree a final divorce, and rendition action for mencement 12 months’ together last parties within the lived where period. *11 “Appellee paid regardless to have been was appellant whether or not obtained her settled divorce, community property interest or reconciled with the husband. The contract included fees not work for performed that was to be in the but alsо future, for already work performed by that had appellee been for paid.” which he had not been argued
It is then that the contract was not contin- gent susceptible because it is i. division, severable. e., From brief: the. present
“In the case, the as was, shown contingent, upon not above, was in no manner based litigation successful gave appellee outcome of the absolutely no interest the suit and no for basis or preventing interest in a reconciliation.” agree appellees. ',We place, cannot first In the evident that the contract was entered into as mat- conсluding ter of the divorce suit McDear- Mr. filed opening paragraph, quoted, mon; the heretofore makes that fact clear. It also will be remembered that Mrs. sought McDearmon an absolute in her counter- divorce claim, heretofore was awarded the mentioned, say divorce. To contract was not entered into this contemplation place be form would divorce, before It is true that not contract did substance. appellees dependent upon state the fee for litigation, successful outcome not but it could be clearly sought by more set that the $45,000.00 appellees dеpendent entirely upon Gordon’s Mr. obtaining in the minimum amount settlement $480,- Any holding plain other would be of the violative 000.00. meaning English language. may of the be that particular attorney not here involved would influ- provision policy enced under discussion, but prevent law is to having an a basis discouraging for a reconciliation. appellees certainly an in- have interest,
As in the they interest a financial suit; terest sought hy appellee, they received property. such a lien on and the court declared lien, argument quite do not understand We contingent, and ac- severable, contract cordingly therefore argument the fact valid. This reference has part *12 3) 1). relate first of while the that, Provisions and settle- $480,000.00 to the on $45,000.00 fee of based the paragraph 3) out that in Provision sets ment, the final $480,000.00 if to the the fails minimum secure compensated rate he at the shall be settlement, spent per of Mrs. of time hour for the behalf $30.00 termi- of McDearmon from October to the date 30, 1967, representation. perplexity to the nation of Our severability argument fact we are is based on the that compensation; uphold per not asked to hour the $30.00 appellees’ that the contention in is entire brief rather, obtaining provisions the Mr. Gordon carried the the $480,000.00 $45,- and is entitled to settlement, thus the little 000.00. it difference whether makes Therefore, per provision valid, the hour contract is severable, and urged uphold portion con- being the are we absolutely in- is tract under Arkansas case which, law, por- express opinion validity no valid. on We the compensation 3), relating tion at the Provision per really it involved, rate of is not since hour, $30.00 only for this not clause was if Mr. did effective perform fully agreement, under the he that and insists perform, arguing he that he did never once entitled to is per hour. $30.00 say dis- think fair to the record We attorneys, in- сloses that all here whose interests are spent in be- time and effort considerable volved, transcript disclosing valid their no client, half of nothing discharge, herein contained reason their and effect that we are is intended to be construed to the passing upon proper fee award- amount to be question litigation, ed. That in this before us passed only properly upon can instance first by the Chancellor. portion
For the reasons heretofore set out, awarding appellant’s attorneys’ decree, fees lawyers, is reversed, the cause remanded to County Chancery Jacksоn instructions Court, purpose evidentiary hearing court conduct an for the determining just quantum on fair fee meruit basis. so ordered.
Fogleman dissent. JJ., Byrd, dissenting. disagreement My Conley Byrd, Justice, majority opinion holding goes with the both to the contingent upon granting here is of a divorce and also because awarded is not upon quantum affirmed the record before us meruit. *13 ordinarily We affirm a chancellor’s when correct decree though ground, it even based on an Martin untenable Taylor, 188 (1934) 65 Ark. 2d 4 and Au S. W. gusta Cooperage Bloch, Co. v. 153 239 S. W. Ark. (1922).
Quantum Meruit record here that at the shows time the contract into, was entered Mrs. McDearmon hired and had fired Gladney Rouge, the law firm of Bankston of Baton Hodges Hodges Louisiana, firm law of & of New- port, appellee, Arkansas hired and had and fired Amos K. Gordon four times. Hodges Hodges Hodges of firm
David tes- & began representing that when tified he Mrs. McDear- only property settlement mon, hus- offer for band $350,000.00. was impossible that to keep was
Mr. Gordon testified time on the records spent ease, track he but all a total he showed hours. keep did price $45,000.00, the total contract While & trial court deducted for $15,000.00 Hodges Hodges, of Bank- Gordon to claim required satisfy $65,000.00 & for Gladney, allegedly compromised $5,000.00, ston clаim Erwin. Thus $1,000.00 settle the Claude amounts to favor Gordon judgment actual $24,000.00. This is modest allowance for services Mr. here performed Gordon. The record shows $131,- $481,000.00, in excess of he obtained a settlement at time outstanding 000.00 increase over offer em- was not Hodges employed. Hodges David Even after Mr. Gordon done substantial work ployed until had had been hired and fired four times. ex- overhead lawyer’s we know Furthermore, re- penses gross run from generally 45% 35% for consider the 552 hours Therefore when we ceipts. the basis Mr. find kept time, which we one- of a he worked approximately 40-hour week has $13,200.00 $15,600.00, third of a income of year for an nonproductive days time and if he allowed any than that vacation he will have worked more time, as Mrs. McDearmon Mrs. McDearmon. Two such clients all could han- year lawyer in one be about would the amount of My personal opinion dle. most considered from a here awarded is modest when meruit the record before us. standpoint under quantum ex- support In fact the could an increased award record *14 cept for the limitation of pleadings.
Contingent Fee opinion in con- characterizing The majority a the fact that ignores (1) tract as divorce contingent on community can of separation property а wife enforce and with- Louisiana coverture during under the laws of (2) compulsory out a that divorce; under the counter- (Repl. claim law of Arkansas, § Ark. Stat. 27-1121 Ann. 1962), prop- separate McDearmon her Mrs. to assert had erty rights County in the Jackson action, divorce brought her at the time contract husband, was (3) entered into or barred; forever and that there presumption legality is a in favor of a contract of illegality rather than the thereof. separation Authority
The basic Louisiana for property by seq. iswife Article 2425 et of the Louisi- ana Civil In Gastauer 131 La. Gastauer, Code. (1912), where was aban- shown husband had allowing the matrimonial doned domicile, the court in separation property during coverture said: right separation
“The of a wife demand upon dependent posses- is not the actual separate upon property, sion her of exist- or against ence of claim her reim- husband paraphernal enough bursement of It is funds. she that the show and circumstances of habits her separation necessary husband such render order preserve family to enable her to earn- for her ing may separate industry she derive ...” talent; Separation Daggett, The also Action See Wife’s Property, (1930), L. Morrow, 5 Tul. Rеv. 55 Property in Louisiana, Law 34 Tul. L. Rev. Matrimonial Admissibility (1959), § Actions Between Marriage. During Husband and Subsistence Wife at facts here show that the time action for divorce into, entered husband’s County pending Chancery in the Court, Jackson Hodges, Mrs. McDearmon David whom had recent- ly appearance therein. fired, had entered her Therefore compulsory Ann. Ark. counterclaim Stat. law, our under pur- to file was forced McDearmon 27-1121, §
335 any rights sue counterclaim therein property she for. might obtain, including any personal wish to individual in husband might posses- which her his property such as sion, negotiable notes, purpose or for the de- claring any trust. resulting Consequently to be for her would have to con- legal services rendered ac- template some action in the being divorce pursued tion or of her rights all would lost. Special Stroud Pulaski
Furthermore, County District, School 244 Ark. 424 S. 2d (1968), W. presume we out that will not pointed the law act. It parties illegal pointed a contract intended an pre- Am. that there is a Jur. 2d Contracts % unless the of a contract sumption favor of legality illegality face. appears upon its set the contract,
I can on face of nothing find that payment in the opinion, forth shows majority di- contingent upon of the feе granting that pay- Neither is there testimony showing vorce. the di- ment thereof was granting evi- From and the testimony, the contract vorce. sep- to obtain employed only dence that Gordon was under acquired of the community property aration of Louisiana. laws presumption to the give when we credence
Thus to pur- and her counsel our wife compelled law remedy separation sue for a any legal injustice think action, I are doing in the divorce we represent continued to the counsel who patient suggest- fired times McDearmon after so being many a reconcilia- contract was preventing he ing encouraging granting or was parties tion cf the a divorce. J.,
Fogleman, dissent. joins