Hubbard v. Hubbard
1979 OK 154, 1979 Okla. LEXIS 345, 603 P.2d 747 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A spouse who supports their partner through professional schooling is entitled to equitable reimbursement for their financial contributions upon divorce. While the professional degree itself is not marital property subject to division, the supporting spouse has a claim for their investment to prevent the unjust enrichment of the degreed spouse.
Facts:
- Delores Hubbard and Dr. R. O. Hubbard were married for over twelve years.
- Throughout the marriage, Delores Hubbard was employed and contributed her income to support the family and her husband's education.
- Delores Hubbard's support enabled Dr. Hubbard to attend pre-medical school, medical school, and complete his internship and residency training.
- The couple's financial resources were primarily used to fund Dr. Hubbard's education, resulting in the accumulation of very little conventional marital property.
- During the marriage, Dr. Hubbard committed acts of extreme cruelty against his wife.
- After a reconciliation following initial misconduct, Dr. Hubbard engaged in similar mistreatment again, reviving the previously condoned offenses.
- The couple divorced just as Dr. Hubbard was about to begin his professional medical career, at which point his earning capacity was expected to increase significantly.
Procedural Posture:
- Delores Hubbard sued Dr. R. O. Hubbard for divorce in the District Court of Oklahoma County, the trial court.
- The trial court granted the divorce on the grounds of extreme cruelty.
- The trial court awarded Delores Hubbard $100,000 as alimony in lieu of a property division, finding she had a 'vested interest' in Dr. Hubbard's medical profession and future earnings.
- Dr. R. O. Hubbard, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment 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:
Is a spouse who provided financial support while their partner obtained a medical degree entitled to a property interest in the partner's future earning capacity as part of the marital property division upon divorce?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. While a professional degree is not divisible marital property, the spouse who supported its acquisition has an equitable claim for reimbursement to prevent the unjust enrichment of the degree-holding spouse. The court agreed with the holding in 'In re Marriage of Graham' that a professional license is not 'property' in the traditional sense because it is personal, cannot be sold, and has no exchange value. However, the court found that equity demands a remedy for the supporting spouse, Ms. Hubbard, who invested her earnings and effort with the expectation of future shared benefits. To allow Dr. Hubbard to retain the full benefit of his increased earning capacity, acquired through her sacrifices, would constitute unjust enrichment. The court therefore established a right of recovery for Ms. Hubbard based on a quasi-contract theory, entitling her to repayment for her investment in his education, rather than a share of his future income.
Dissenting - Lavender, C.J.
Yes, effectively. The court should recognize the husband's enhanced future earning capacity as an asset from which an award of alimony in lieu of property division can be made. The dissent argued that equity should prevent the extraordinary injustice of leaving the supporting spouse with nothing after contributing substantially to the other's professional success. Citing 'In re Marriage of Horstmann', the dissent contended that while the degree itself isn't property, the potential for increased earnings made possible by the wife's efforts constitutes an asset. Therefore, the trial court's original award of $100,000 should have been affirmed as a just and reasonable division based on equitable considerations, without remanding for a more limited calculation.
Analysis:
This decision established a landmark equitable remedy for the 'student-spouse, working-spouse' divorce scenario. By rejecting a strict property definition for a professional degree but simultaneously preventing unjust enrichment, the court created a new path for financial recovery. This approach, focusing on reimbursement for contributions rather than a speculative share of future earnings, provided a more concrete and less controversial framework than treating degrees as assets. The case significantly influenced family law by acknowledging the financial investment of a non-student spouse and ensuring that this contribution is not ignored if the marriage ends before the couple reaps the financial rewards of the education.
