¶1concurring. I agree with the conclusions announced in the majority opinion. I would, however, amplify its concluding paragraph to state more clearly what I understand our holding to be. As I understand our decision, we determined that, in order to be consistent, we should adhere to the traditional distinctions made between property held as tenants by the entireties and all other estates. Thus, we hold that income from marital and non-marital property will be divided on divorce as marital property under the provisions of Ark. Stat. Ann. § 34-1214 (Supp. 1985). Income earned during the marriage from entireties property will be treated the same as all other assets held by the entireties and divided on divorce in accordance with the provisions of Ark. Stat. Ann. § 34-1215 (Supp. 1985).
¶2Mayfield, J., joins in this concurrence.
¶3James R. Cooper, Judge, dissenting in part. I agree with the majority opinion as to the first point. However, I do not agree with the majority conclusion that income earned from entireties property is to be treated as are other assets held as tenants by the entirety and divided under Ark. Stat. Ann. § 34-1215 (Supp. 1985).
¶4In Wagoner v. Wagoner, 294 Ark. 82, 740 S.W.2d 915 (1987), the Arkansas Supreme Court dealt with income earned during the marriage on non-marital property which was acquired subsequent to the marriage. In Wagoner, the court explained its holding in Day v. Day, 281 Ark. 261, 663 S.W.2d 719(1984), and stated:
In Day, this court held that all earnings or other property acquired by each spouse subsequent to marriage must be treated as marital property unless falling within one of the statutory exceptions. Day, 281 Ark. at 268, 663 S.W.2d at 722.
¶5Wagoner, 294 Ark. at 84, 740 S.W.2d at 916. The majority cites no exception in Ark. Stat. Ann. § 34-1214 (Supp. 1985) which would remove this type of income from inclusion under §34-1214 as marital property. The majority simply concludes that § 34-1215 governs.
¶6I dissent.