Christmas v. Christmas
787 p.2d 1267, 1990 Okla. LEXIS 17, 1990 OK 16 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Disability benefits received after a divorce are the separate property of the disabled spouse because they are intended to replace post-divorce earnings, which would be separate property, not to replace marital assets like retirement savings.
Facts:
- Bill Christmas (husband) and Suzy Christmas (wife) were married in 1974.
- Husband worked as the Chief of the Sapulpa Fire Department.
- On December 7, 1987, wife filed a petition for divorce, and the couple separated.
- Two weeks after the divorce filing, husband entered a sanatorium for approximately three months due to job-related stress.
- The Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement Board awarded husband disability benefits of $1,259.03 per month, effective July 1, 1988.
- In the divorce proceeding, wife asserted she was entitled to half of the husband's monthly disability payments.
- Husband contended that the disability benefits were his separate property.
Procedural Posture:
- Suzy Christmas filed a petition for divorce against Bill Christmas in an Oklahoma trial court.
- In the course of the proceedings, the trial court held that the husband's disability benefits were jointly-acquired property subject to division.
- The trial court then certified this specific holding for an interlocutory appeal, allowing a higher court to rule on the issue before the divorce was finalized.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the trial court's certified order.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are disability benefits received after a divorce considered jointly-acquired property subject to equitable division?
Opinions:
Majority - Hodges, J.
No. Disability benefits received after a divorce are the separate property of the recipient spouse. The court adopts a 'replacement analysis,' which classifies benefits according to the nature of the assets they replace. Retirement pensions are joint property because they replace savings that would have been earned and saved during the marriage. In contrast, disability benefits received post-divorce replace future lost wages that would have been the earner's separate property. Therefore, because the husband's disability payments replace his post-coverture wages, they are classified as his separate property, not subject to marital division, though they may be considered as income for alimony or child support purposes.
Dissenting - Alma Wilson, J.
The dissent agrees with the majority's distinction between disability and retirement benefits but argues that the majority's instructions on remand are incomplete. The dissent contends the trial court should be explicitly directed to determine whether the husband's benefits plan contains a retirement component acquired during the marriage, even if it is currently being paid out as disability. If a retirement right exists and is extinguished by the disability payments, its value should be calculated and included in the marital estate for equitable division. The dissent fears that by not giving this explicit direction, the majority allows a potentially valuable marital asset (the retirement component) to be improperly shielded from division by being characterized solely as separate-property disability pay.
Analysis:
This case establishes the 'replacement analysis' as the controlling framework in Oklahoma for classifying wage-substitute benefits in divorce actions. It creates a critical distinction between disability benefits (separate property) and retirement pensions (joint property) based on what each benefit replaces—future individual earnings versus past marital savings. This precedent requires courts to look past the name of a benefit plan and conduct a functional analysis of its purpose. The decision complicates divorce proceedings involving hybrid benefit plans, necessitating a careful dissection of benefits to separate any divisible retirement components from non-divisible disability components.
