Janitz v. Janitz
2013 WL 6700091, 2013 OK CIV APP 107, 315 P.3d 410 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For the purpose of marital property division, the period of 'joint industry' ceases upon the couple's physical separation, and property acquired by either spouse after that date is considered their separate property, even if they remain legally married and one spouse continues to provide financial support to the other.
Facts:
- Lezlie A. Janitz (Wife) and Roger E. Janitz (Husband) were married in 1998.
- Husband, an oral surgeon, owned a home that he had purchased in 1987, and Wife and her daughter moved in after the marriage.
- Husband moved out of the marital home in June 1997 and the couple remained physically separated thereafter.
- For the fourteen years between the separation and the divorce filing, Husband continued to financially support Wife, paying for the home, utilities, credit cards, insurance, and other expenses.
- During their separation, Husband and Wife continued to file tax returns jointly as a married couple.
- After separating in 1997, Husband acquired an IRA (in 2000), a 2002 Buick Le Sabre, and a 2006 Mazda Miata.
- Wife lived in the home with her daughter from the date of separation until the divorce was filed in 2011.
Procedural Posture:
- Lezlie A. Janitz (Wife) filed a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage against Roger E. Janitz (Husband) in an Oklahoma trial court on March 14, 2011.
- The trial court entered an Agreed Decree of Dissolution of Marriage on April 11, 2012.
- The trial court ruled that the parties separated in June 1997, that their joint industry ended on that date, and that property Husband acquired thereafter was his separate property.
- The trial court also denied Wife's request for support alimony.
- Wife, as Petitioner/Appellant, appealed the trial court's decree to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals.
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 property acquired by a spouse after a lengthy physical separation, but before the official filing of a divorce petition, constitute marital property subject to equitable division?
Opinions:
Majority - Goree, J.
No. Property acquired by a spouse after the date of physical separation is the acquiring spouse's separate property because the couple's 'joint industry' ceases at the time of separation. The court found that the trial court's determination that the parties separated in June 1997 was not against the clear weight of the evidence. Citing precedent like Harden v. Harden, the court reasoned that property acquired after spouses begin living separate and apart is not a product of their joint industry. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Husband the assets he acquired after June 1997—including his IRA and two cars—as his separate property. Similarly, the court affirmed the denial of support alimony, finding that the evidence supported the conclusion that Husband lacked the ability to pay.
Analysis:
This case clarifies that the factual date of physical separation, rather than the formal date of a divorce filing, is the critical moment for determining when the accumulation of marital property ends in Oklahoma. It establishes that 'joint industry' is a practical concept tied to the couple living together and building a life, not merely a legal status. This precedent is significant for cases involving long-term separations, as it prevents a spouse from claiming a share of assets accumulated long after the marital partnership effectively ended, even if financial support and legal ties like joint tax filings continued.
