Ford v. Ford
1988 Okla. LEXIS 120, 1988 OK 103, 766 P.2d 950 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The appreciation in value of a spouse's separate property, such as a professional practice, that occurs during the marriage is considered jointly acquired marital property subject to division if the increase results from the joint efforts of both spouses, including non-monetary contributions like homemaking and childcare.
Facts:
- Prior to his marriage, Jon Ford owned a law practice which was valued at $40,000 in 1975.
- Jon Ford married Jane Ford in November 1975.
- During the marriage, Jane Ford was the primary caretaker for the couple's minor child.
- With the exception of one semester while she was in school, Jane Ford did not work outside the home during the marriage.
- Throughout the marriage, Jon Ford's law practice increased significantly in value.
- Jon Ford also used marital funds to pay at least $30,000 in medical expenses for Jane Ford's child from a previous marriage.
- The parties subsequently sought a divorce.
Procedural Posture:
- The trial court granted a divorce to Jane and Jon Ford.
- The trial court divided the marital property, treating the appreciation of Jon Ford's law practice as a marital asset, and ordered Jon Ford to pay Jane Ford's attorney's fees.
- Jon Ford, as appellant, appealed the trial court's decision to the Court of Appeals, challenging the property division, support alimony, and award of attorney's fees.
- Jane Ford, also as an appellant, cross-appealed, challenging the custody arrangement, amount of support alimony, and property division.
- The Court of Appeals issued an opinion, which held, in part, that the law practice was not marital property and vacated the award of attorney's fees.
- Jane Ford, as petitioner, sought a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, which was granted.
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 the appreciation in value of a professional practice, which was separate property before the marriage, constitute jointly acquired marital property subject to division when the non-owner spouse contributed to the marriage as a homemaker and primary caretaker?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Summers
Yes. The appreciation in value of a professional practice that was separate property before the marriage constitutes jointly acquired marital property subject to division. The court held that where separate property increases in value as a result of the joint efforts of the husband and wife, the non-owning spouse is entitled to an interest in that appreciation. The court reasoned, citing Templeton v. Templeton, that the contributing spouse's 'joint industry' need not be a monetary contribution or direct work in the professional practice. Citing Carpenter v. Carpenter, the court affirmed that a spouse's efforts as a primary caretaker and homemaker qualify as a joint effort that contributes to the increase in value of the other spouse's separate business assets.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal principle that non-monetary contributions, such as homemaking and child-rearing, have recognized economic value in the context of a divorce. It establishes that the appreciation of separate business assets, including professional practices, is not shielded from equitable distribution if the non-owning spouse's efforts at home facilitated the other spouse's ability to grow the business. This precedent strengthens the position of non-working or lower-earning spouses by ensuring they are compensated for their role in the marital partnership and its overall economic success.
