Bowman v. Bowman
639 P.2d 1257 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An increase in the value of a spouse's separate property due solely to inflation is not considered jointly acquired marital property subject to division. For support alimony to be awarded, the receiving spouse's need for support must be rationally connected to the marriage itself, not from pre-existing financial burdens.
Facts:
- In May 1977, a 55-year-old Wife and a 73-year-old Husband married.
- At the time of marriage, Husband owned an unmortgaged home, cars, and a $100,000 retirement fund, all considered his separate property.
- Wife also entered the marriage with her own separate property, including a home, a car, savings, and a government job with a pension.
- The marriage lasted approximately 17 months, during which both parties continued to work, maintained separate finances, and filed separate tax returns.
- Husband paid for all joint living expenses, while Wife used her salary to support her adult children from a prior marriage.
- During the marriage, the value of Husband's home increased, which an appraiser testified was due solely to inflation; no improvements were made with joint funds.
- Husband continued making contributions to his separate retirement fund from his own earnings during the marriage.
- In October 1978, Wife moved out and filed for divorce.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Wife filed a petition for divorce against Defendant Husband in an Oklahoma trial court.
- The trial court granted the divorce and entered a judgment awarding Wife a portion of the inflationary increase in Husband's separate property, a share of his retirement savings, support alimony, and attorney's fees.
- Both Husband and Wife appealed the trial court's property and alimony judgment to the Oklahoma Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a divorce proceeding, does the increase in value of a spouse's separate property due solely to inflation constitute jointly acquired property subject to division, and can support alimony be awarded based on a spouse's needs that pre-existed and were not exacerbated by the marriage?
Opinions:
Majority - Boydston, Judge
No. The increase in value of a spouse's separate property due solely to inflation is not jointly acquired property subject to division, and support alimony cannot be based on needs that predate the marriage. The court reversed the trial court's awards, holding that an increase in value of separate property is only divisible if attributed to the expenditure of joint funds or the other spouse's efforts. Because the appreciation of Husband's home was due only to inflation, it remains his separate property. Similarly, contributions made from Husband's own earnings to his pre-existing retirement fund are not subject to division. The court also established that support alimony must be based on a need rationally connected to the marriage itself; Wife's financial obligations to her children existed before the marriage and were not caused or aggravated by it, thus providing no basis for an alimony award.
Analysis:
This case establishes a clear and significant precedent in Oklahoma family law regarding the treatment of separate property and the basis for support alimony. By explicitly excluding inflationary gains on separate property from the marital estate, the court protects pre-marital assets from being divided due to market forces alone. More importantly, the decision introduces a 'rational connection' test for support alimony, requiring that a spouse's need arise from the marriage itself. This moves the focus from a simple comparison of the parties' financial statuses to a causal analysis of whether the marriage created economic dependency, significantly impacting alimony claims in cases involving short-term marriages or pre-existing financial burdens.
Unlock the full brief for Bowman v. Bowman