Crocker v. Crocker
62 O.B.A.J. 3710, 30 A.L.R. 5th 768, 824 p.2d 1117 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A workers’ compensation award constitutes marital property subject to division only to the extent it compensates for loss of income during the marriage; any portion that compensates for the injured party's loss of post-divorce earnings is considered separate property.
Facts:
- James Crocker and Betty Crocker were married and divorced three times, with their third marriage beginning on February 14, 1978.
- James was awarded the couple's home in their 1977 divorce decree and retained sole title to it after they remarried in 1978.
- In December 1987, during his third marriage to Betty, James sustained a hernia while working as a truck driver.
- On April 18, 1989, James received a lump-sum workers’ compensation payment of $39,824.65, which he deposited into his separate checking account.
- On June 16, 1989, Betty filed for divorce.
- After Betty filed for divorce, James was notified he would receive a lump-sum award of $11,390.00 for accrued social security disability payments.
Procedural Posture:
- Betty Crocker filed for divorce against James Crocker in an Oklahoma state trial court.
- Following a hearing, the trial court entered a divorce decree that divided the couple's property.
- The trial court awarded Betty 50% of James' remaining workers' compensation award, 50% of his lump-sum social security payment, and ordered the sale of the home with profits to be divided equally.
- James Crocker, as appellant, appealed the trial court's property division to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a lump-sum workers' compensation award, received during a marriage for an injury sustained during that marriage, constitute marital property subject to equitable division upon divorce?
Opinions:
Majority - Kauger, J.
Yes, in part. A workers' compensation disability award is marital property only to the extent that it recompenses for the couple’s loss of income during the marriage; to the extent it compensates for the loss of post-divorce earnings, it is the injured party's separate property. The court surveyed four different approaches used by various jurisdictions and rejected the 'unitary' approach (that the award is uniquely personal) because Oklahoma law historically treats workers' compensation as a replacement for lost wages, not as an indemnity for physical injury. The court adopted the 'analytic approach,' which aligns with the 'replacement approach' used for disability insurance proceeds in Christmas v. Christmas. This approach requires a determination of what the award is intended to replace. Any portion compensating for lost earning capacity during coverture is marital property, while any portion compensating for future, post-divorce loss of earning capacity belongs solely to the injured spouse. The court also held that social security benefits are not marital property under federal law and that property awarded to a spouse in a prior divorce decree remains that spouse's separate property upon remarriage unless its status is formally changed.
Concurring - Opala, C.J.
Yes, but only for certain types of disability payments. The concurring opinion agrees that payments for temporary total, permanent total, and temporary partial disability are wage replacements and are thus marital property if they cover an in-coverture period. However, it argues that payments for permanent partial disability should always be treated as the separate property of the injured spouse. The reasoning is that Oklahoma's statutory scheme defines permanent partial disability as compensation for 'permanent impairment,' which is a loss of bodily function, not a loss of wages. Because it compensates for the loss of corporal fitness, it is uniquely personal to the injured individual and should not be included in the marital estate, even if the amount is calculated using a wage formula.
Analysis:
This case establishes the 'analytic approach' as the legal standard in Oklahoma for classifying workers' compensation benefits in divorce proceedings. By rejecting simpler, all-or-nothing rules, the court requires trial courts to dissect the purpose of an award, distinguishing between compensation for marital-era economic loss and post-divorce economic loss. This decision aligns the treatment of workers' compensation with other wage-replacement benefits, creating a more consistent, albeit more complex, framework for property division. It places a burden on the parties to present evidence about the specific time period and economic losses the award is intended to cover.
Unlock the full brief for Crocker v. Crocker