Brown v. Brown
1978 Okla. Civ. App. LEXIS 150, 586 P.2d 83, 1978 OK CIV APP 37 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a divorce proceeding, a property division intended to be equitable must accurately account for any equalizing money judgments by subtracting the judgment amount from the payor's total award to reflect the true net distribution to each party.
Facts:
- After 30 years of marriage, an attorney and his wife, a school teacher, initiated divorce proceedings.
- The parties had accumulated approximately $300,000 in jointly acquired assets and both requested an equal division.
- The husband sold Federal Mogul stock before the property division was finalized, using a significant portion of the proceeds to purchase cars for their children.
- The parties owned a remainder interest in a house in Noel, Missouri, where the husband's 93-year-old aunt held a life estate.
- The wife maintained her teaching earnings in a separate account, which was not included in the marital estate for division.
- The wife possessed jewelry valued at over $5,000, which was purchased with joint assets but was not included in the valuation of the marital estate.
Procedural Posture:
- A wife filed for divorce from her husband in an Oklahoma trial court.
- The trial court issued a divorce decree that divided the marital assets between the parties.
- As part of the division, the court granted the wife a money judgment of $36,300 against the husband to equalize the distribution.
- The husband (appellant) appealed the trial court's property division to the Oklahoma Court of Appeals, contending that the division was inequitable due to calculation errors.
- The wife is the appellee in the appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court abuse its discretion in dividing the marital estate by miscalculating the net value of the assets awarded to each party, particularly by failing to subtract an equalizing money judgment from the paying spouse's share, resulting in an inequitable distribution?
Opinions:
Majority - Brightmire, J.
Yes. The trial court's division of assets was not equitable because it failed to properly account for the effect of the equalizing money judgment. The court's calculation was deceptive because it awarded the wife a $36,300 judgment against the husband but did not subtract this amount from the value of the property awarded to the husband. This error created a substantial and unjust disparity, leaving the husband with approximately 40% of the estate and the wife with 60%. Furthermore, the court failed to give the husband credit for his interest in household furnishings awarded to the wife. To rectify the inequity, the appellate court modifies the decree by vacating the $36,300 judgment and instead awarding the wife an IRS tax refund valued at $7,679, which results in a nearly equal division of the assets.
Dissenting - Neptune, P.J.
No. The trial court's division of property was equitable under the circumstances and should be affirmed. The majority improperly considered the value of household furnishings, as evidence suggested their value was included in the homestead's appraisal. The majority also failed to account for a $29,800 trust the husband established, which the trial court considered in its overall division. Given that the wife requested support alimony but received none, the trial court was within its discretion to award her a somewhat greater share of the property, especially considering the 32-year marriage and the parties' disparate earning capacities.
Analysis:
This decision emphasizes that the substance of a property division, not just the stated intent, determines its equitability. It serves as a crucial procedural check for trial courts, establishing that an equalizing money judgment must be treated as a liability for the payor and an asset for the payee in the final accounting. The case demonstrates an appellate court's willingness to re-calculate a property division to correct mathematical errors that create a substantively unfair outcome, reinforcing the principle that a truly equitable distribution must be reflected in the bottom-line numbers. This provides clear guidance for future divorce cases on how to structure and account for cash payments used to balance property awards.
