Lexplug logoLexplug

Hees v. Hees

Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma
2003 WL 23120125, 2003 OK CIV APP 103, 82 P.3d 107 (2003)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under Oklahoma law, significant in-kind payments received by a parent through employment, such as free housing, that reduce personal living expenses must be included as income when calculating child support obligations.


Facts:

  • Patsy Hees is the custodial mother and Charles Hees is the non-custodial father of a minor child.
  • Charles Hees is a member of the United States Air Force and resides in government housing on Tinker Air Force Base.
  • Charles Hees does not pay rent or any other cost for his on-base housing.
  • Because he lives in on-base housing, Charles Hees does not receive a monthly housing allowance that he would otherwise be paid if he lived off-base.
  • The United States Air Force values the free on-base housing at $688 per month.

Procedural Posture:

  • Charles Hees (father) filed a Motion to Modify Child Support in the state trial court.
  • The trial court granted the motion and issued a modified child support order.
  • In its order, the trial court ruled that the value of the father's free on-base military housing was not to be included in his gross monthly income for the child support computation.
  • Patsy Hees (mother) filed a motion for the trial court to reconsider its decision, which the court denied.
  • Patsy Hees, as appellant, appealed the trial court's order to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals.

Locked

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 Oklahoma law require a trial court to include the value of a parent's free, on-base military housing as income for the purpose of calculating child support, when that housing is significant and reduces personal living expenses?


Opinions:

Majority - Reif, J.

Yes, Oklahoma law requires a trial court to include the value of a parent's free on-base military housing as income for child support calculations when the housing is significant and reduces personal living expenses. The governing statute, 43 O.S. 2001 § 118(E)(B)(e), states that in-kind payments received through employment 'shall be counted as income if they are significant and reduce personal living expenses,' and explicitly lists 'free housing' as an example. The court found this language constitutes a 'mandatory directive,' not a grant of discretion to the trial court. The trial court erred by reasoning that the housing was not income because the father did not receive a direct cash 'allowance.' The statute's clear intent is to treat the economic value of significant living expense benefits as income, regardless of the form in which they are received. Because the $688 monthly value of the housing is significant and it reduces the father's personal living expenses by eliminating the need for him to pay for shelter, its value must be included in his gross income.



Analysis:

This decision clarifies that the definition of 'income' for child support purposes in Oklahoma is broad and not limited to direct cash payments. It establishes that courts must look to the economic reality of a parent's compensation, including valuable non-cash benefits provided by an employer. The ruling prevents a parent from effectively shielding a portion of their compensation from child support calculations by accepting in-kind benefits in lieu of cash. This precedent strengthens the legal principle that child support should be based on a parent's total financial resources and ability to pay.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Hees v. Hees (2003) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Hees v. Hees