Ark. Code Ann. » Title 9 Chapter 11
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 9-11-508 (2020)

Contracts concerning separate property of one spouse not binding on other spouse

✓ Arkansas Code release r76: Acts through about 2020 (2021-2025 sessions missing)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

No bargain or contract made by any married person, in respect to his or her sole and separate property or any property that may come to him or her by descent, devise, bequest, purchase, or gift or grant of any person, and no bargain or contract entered into by any married person, in or about the carrying on of any trade or business, under any statute of the state, shall be binding upon his or her spouse or render his or her person or property in any way liable therefor.

History. Acts 1873, No. 126, § 4, p. 382; C. & M. Dig., § 5582; Pope's Dig., § 7232; Acts 1981, No. 873, § 3; A.S.A. 1947, § 55-407.

Case Notes

Divorce.

This section does not control on the issue of marital debt associated with division of property in a divorce case. Hunt v. Hunt, 341 Ark. 173, 15 S.W.3d 334 (2000).

Cited: Mattar Bros. v. Wathen, 99 Ark. 329, 138 S.W. 455 (1911); Medlock v. Fort Smith Serv. Fin. Corp., 304 Ark. 652, 803 S.W.2d 930 (1991).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1991–2000 · leading case: Hunt v. Hunt, 15 S.W.3d 334 (Ark. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hunt v. Hunt, 15 S.W.3d 334 (Ark. 2000). · cites it 4× “That statute reads: No bargain or contract made by any married person, in respect to his or her sole and separate property or any property which may come to him or her by descent, devise, bequest, purchase, or gift or grant of any person, and no bargain or contract entered into…”
Medlock v. Fort Smith Serv. Fin. Corp., 803 S.W.2d 930 (Ark. 1991). · cites it 2× “” The Act, as codified in part at section 9-11-508, states: No bargain or contract made by any married person, in respect to his or her sole and separate property.”
Davis v. Baxter Cnty. Reg'l Hosp., 855 S.W.2d 303 (Ark. 1993). · cites it 2× “1 Consistent with the foregoing rule, this court specifically held that § 9-11-508, one of Arkansas’s statutory provisions dealing with the rights of married persons, had not changed the wife’s necessary doctrine because that provision only exempts the husband from liability for…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.