Ark. Code Ann. » Title 9 Chapter 12
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 9-12-306 (2020)

Corroboration

✓ Arkansas Code release r76: Acts through about 2020 (2021-2025 sessions missing)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. In uncontested divorce suits, corroboration of the plaintiff's grounds for divorce shall not be necessary or required.
  2. In contested suits, corroboration of the injured party's grounds may be expressly waived in writing by the other spouse.
    1. This section does not apply to proof as to residence, which must be corroborated, and does not apply to proof of separation and continuity of separation without cohabitation, which must be corroborated.
    2. In uncontested cases, proof as to residence and proof of separation and continuity of separation without cohabitation may be corroborated by either oral testimony or verified affidavit of persons other than the parties.

History. Acts 1969, No. 398, § 1; 1981, No. 267, § 1; 1985, No. 474, § 1; A.S.A. 1947, § 34-1207.1.

Research References

U. Ark. Little Rock L.J.

Legislative Survey, Family Law, 4 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 595.

Arkansas Law Survey, Morgan, Family Law, 8 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 169.

Case Notes

Contested Cases.

Although this section removed the need for corroboration in uncontested divorce suits it did not remove the requirement in contested suits. Adams v. Adams, 252 Ark. 20, 477 S.W.2d 183 (1972).

In contested suit wife's testimony was not corroborated and she was therefore not entitled to a divorce. Peter v. Peter, 10 Ark. App. 292, 663 S.W.2d 744 (1984).

In contested cases where corroboration has not been waived but there is no intimation of collusion, the corroborating evidence of grounds for divorce may be relatively slight. Gunnell v. Gunnell, 30 Ark. App. 4, 780 S.W.2d 597 (1989).

Circuit court did not err by awarding the wife a divorce based on the ground of indignities under § 9-12-301(b)(3)(C), because the wife offered evidence of her husband's ongoing affair, rudeness, unmerited reproach, and studied neglect that amounted to “settled hate” rendering her condition in life intolerable. Evidence of his indignities was corroborated under this section by her mother who indicated that her husband was rude, inattentive, and did not care about her; additionally, his misuse of marital funds, purchase of diamonds, and hotel bills provided some inference that he was engaged in studied neglect, open insult, and alienation and estrangement. Coker v. Coker, 2012 Ark. 383, 423 S.W.3d 599 (2012).

Residence.

An issue of residence deals directly with the authority, power and right of the trial court to act and therefore, the corroborating evidence, although relatively slight, should not be speculative and vague in scope. Hingle v. Hingle, 264 Ark. 442, 572 S.W.2d 395 (1978).

Proof of residency held corroborated. Rachel v. Rachel, 294 Ark. 110, 741 S.W.2d 240 (1987).

Residency must be corroborated and proven in every instance, despite admission by a defendant. Hodges v. Hodges, 27 Ark. App. 250, 770 S.W.2d 164 (1989).

The purpose of the corroboration of residency rule is to prevent procurement of divorce by collusion, and when there is no collusion, the corroboration required is slight. Hodges v. Hodges, 27 Ark. App. 250, 770 S.W.2d 164 (1989).

Proof of residency in a divorce action may not be dispensed with or supplied by the express and direct action of the parties, and it may not be supplied by their indirect actions through application of the doctrine of estoppel. Araneda v. Araneda, 48 Ark. App. 236, 894 S.W.2d 146 (1995).

Trial court had jurisdiction to grant a divorce as the necessary corroboration of the wife's residency was supplied by the wife's daughter, who testified that the wife had been a resident in the county for 9 or 10 years before filing for divorce and reiterated her previous testimony that the wife was a resident of the county for at least 3 months preceding the entry of the divorce decree. Rogers v. Rogers, 90 Ark. App. 321, 205 S.W.3d 856 (2005).

Husband was ordered to file a substituted brief in his appeal to the supreme court in which he challenged the circuit court's jurisdiction to enter the divorce decree as he failed to abstract his wife's testimony pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. & Ct. App. R. 4-2 regarding the residency requirements of § 9-12-307(a)(1)(A) and subdivision (c)(1) of this section. Roberts v. Roberts, 2009 Ark. 306, 319 S.W.3d 234 (2009).

At the hearing on a divorce complaint filed in 2005, a witness testified that the wife had continuously resided in Pulaski County, Arkansas, from 1999 to 2006 for purposes of the residency requirement of § 9-12-307(a)(1)(A); because the wife provided corroborated proof under subdivision (c)(1) of this section, the circuit court had jurisdiction to enter the divorce decree. Roberts v. Roberts, 2009 Ark. 567, 349 S.W.3d 886 (2009).

Corroboration of a wife's residence in Arkansas by her adult daughter as required for divorce jurisdiction under § 9-12-307(a)(1)(A) was sufficient under subdivision (c)(1) of this section. Freeman v. Freeman, 2013 Ark. App. 693, 430 S.W.3d 824 (2013).

Separation.

Although subdivision (c)(1) of this section requires that proof of separation and continuity of separation without cohabitation be corroborated, it relates only to those grounds found in § 9-12-301(b)(5) and (6) in which separation without cohabitation is an element, or cases in which cohabitation is an affirmative defense. Hodges v. Hodges, 27 Ark. App. 250, 770 S.W.2d 164 (1989).

Stipulation or Waiver of Grounds.

Regardless of whether a divorce is contested or uncontested, the injured party must always prove his or her ground(s) for divorce; in other words, existing statutory law does not allow a spouse to stipulate to or waive grounds for divorce. Harpole v. Harpole, 10 Ark. App. 298, 664 S.W.2d 480 (1984).

Oral waiver made in open court and recorded by the reporter is as valid as though transcribed and executed. Rachel v. Rachel, 294 Ark. 110, 741 S.W.2d 240 (1987).

A judgment of divorce was reversed and the case was dismissed without prejudice where the plaintiff wife failed to corroborate her grounds for divorce and she also did not provide an expressed waiver of the requirement of corroboration. Oates v. Oates, 340 Ark. 431, 10 S.W.3d 861 (2000).

Cited: Holden v. Holden, 269 Ark. 850, 601 S.W.2d 247 (Ct. App. 1980); Calhoun v. Calhoun, 3 Ark. App. 270, 625 S.W.2d 545 (1981); Price v. Price, 29 Ark. App. 212, 780 S.W.2d 342 (1989).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1989–2026 · leading case: Hodges v. Hodges, 770 S.W.2d 164 (Ark. Ct. App. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hodges v. Hodges, 770 S.W.2d 164 (Ark. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 8× “Ark. Code Ann. § 9-12-306 (a) (1987). Appellant also argues that because the parties continued to reside in the martial home until and after the divorce was granted, appellee’s testimony that they lived separate and apart under the same roof must be corroborated.”
Evtimov v. Milanova, 300 S.W.3d 110 (Ark. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 6× “Ark.Code Ann. § 9-12-306(b) (Repl.2006); Hodges, supra .”
Oates v. Oates, 10 S.W.3d 861 (Ark. 2000). · cites it 7× “In so holding, the remaining issues bearing on the property awards and other matters argued will not be addressed. The premise of Owen’s argument is that this is a contested divorce, and at no time did Maria provide an expressed waiver of the requirement of corroboration to her…”
Roberts v. Roberts, 2009 Ark. 567, 349 S.W.3d 886. · cites it 4× “5 Because Robin clearly met and proved the residency requirements of section 9-12-306(a), which proof was corroborated, we hold that the circuit court in no way lacked jurisdiction to enter the instant divorce decree.”
Araneda v. Araneda, 894 S.W.2d 146 (Ark. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 6× “1993) provides that residence in the state by either the plaintiff or defendant for 60 days before the commencement of the action must be proved in order to obtain a divorce.”
Coker v. Coker, 2012 Ark. 383, 423 S.W.3d 599. · cites it 2× “” We cannot say that the circuit court was clearly erroneous in finding that Clayton’s conduct constituted such indignities to Samantha as to render her condition intolerable.”
Rogers v. Rogers, 205 S.W.3d 856 (Ark. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “Ark. Code Ann. § 9-12-306 (Repl.1993). Therefore, in the context of the divorce case, the trial court generally had the jurisidiction to decide the issues presented in the divorce, see generally Banning v.”
Price v. Price, 780 S.W.2d 342 (Ark. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “2d 240 (1987); Ark. Code Ann. § 9-12-306 (b) (1987).”
Gunnell v. Gunnell, 780 S.W.2d 597 (Ark. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 4× “2d 164 (1989); Ark. Code Ann. § 9-12-306 (c) (1987), corroboration of grounds is not required in uncontested cases and may be waived in contested cases.”
Roberts v. Roberts, 2009 Ark. 306, 319 S.W.3d 234. · cites it 2× “2008), which are required to be corroborated pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated § 9-12-306(c)(1). A review of the record reveals that a hearing was held at which Robin presented testimony regarding the residency requirements.”
Joshua Mayland v. Kayla Mayland, 2019 Ark. App. 390. · cites it 2× “; Ark. Code Ann. § 9-12-306 (Repl. 2015). In the instant case, Kayla failed to offer a waiver of corroboration from Joshua; therefore, she was required to present corroborating evidence of her grounds for the circuit court to grant her counterclaim for divorce.”
Stevie Del Busto v. John Del Busto, 2026 Ark. App. 253, 737 S.W.3d 761. · cites it 4× “Among other things, she argued that corroboration is not required in uncontested divorce suits under Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-12-306(a);1 that John had voluntarily signed the decree on July 5, 2022; and that John failed to appeal the final divorce decree within thirty…”
Show all 13 citing cases →
Ark. Code Ann. § 9-12-306(a): 3 cases
Hodges v. Hodges, 770 S.W.2d 164 (Ark. Ct. App. 1989). “Ark. Code Ann. § 9-12-306 (a) (1987). Appellant also argues that because the parties continued to reside in the martial home until and after the divorce was granted, appellee’s testimony that they lived separate and apart under the same roof must be corroborated.”
Roberts v. Roberts, 2009 Ark. 567, 349 S.W.3d 886. “5 Because Robin clearly met and proved the residency requirements of section 9-12-306(a), which proof was corroborated, we hold that the circuit court in no way lacked jurisdiction to enter the instant divorce decree.”
Stevie Del Busto v. John Del Busto, 2026 Ark. App. 253, 737 S.W.3d 761. “Among other things, she argued that corroboration is not required in uncontested divorce suits under Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-12-306(a);1 that John had voluntarily signed the decree on July 5, 2022; and that John failed to appeal the final divorce decree within thirty…”
Ark. Code Ann. § 9-12-306(b): 2 cases
Evtimov v. Milanova, 300 S.W.3d 110 (Ark. Ct. App. 2009). “Ark.Code Ann. § 9-12-306(b) (Repl.2006); Hodges, supra .”
Oates v. Oates, 10 S.W.3d 861 (Ark. 2000). “In so holding, the remaining issues bearing on the property awards and other matters argued will not be addressed. The premise of Owen’s argument is that this is a contested divorce, and at no time did Maria provide an expressed waiver of the requirement of corroboration to her…”
Ark. Code Ann. § 9-12-306(c)(1): 4 cases
Evtimov v. Milanova, 300 S.W.3d 110 (Ark. Ct. App. 2009). “Ark.Code Ann. § 9-12-306(b) (Repl.2006); Hodges, supra .”
Hodges v. Hodges, 770 S.W.2d 164 (Ark. Ct. App. 1989). “Ark. Code Ann. § 9-12-306 (a) (1987). Appellant also argues that because the parties continued to reside in the martial home until and after the divorce was granted, appellee’s testimony that they lived separate and apart under the same roof must be corroborated.”
Roberts v. Roberts, 2009 Ark. 567, 349 S.W.3d 886. “5 Because Robin clearly met and proved the residency requirements of section 9-12-306(a), which proof was corroborated, we hold that the circuit court in no way lacked jurisdiction to enter the instant divorce decree.”
Roberts v. Roberts, 2009 Ark. 306, 319 S.W.3d 234. “2008), which are required to be corroborated pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated § 9-12-306(c)(1). A review of the record reveals that a hearing was held at which Robin presented testimony regarding the residency requirements.”
Ark. Code Ann. § 9-12-306(c)(l): 2 cases
Hodges v. Hodges, 770 S.W.2d 164 (Ark. Ct. App. 1989). “Ark. Code Ann. § 9-12-306 (a) (1987). Appellant also argues that because the parties continued to reside in the martial home until and after the divorce was granted, appellee’s testimony that they lived separate and apart under the same roof must be corroborated.”
Roberts v. Roberts, 2009 Ark. 306, 319 S.W.3d 234. “2008), which are required to be corroborated pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated § 9-12-306(c)(1). A review of the record reveals that a hearing was held at which Robin presented testimony regarding the residency requirements.”
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.