Johnson v. Johnson
674 p.2d 539 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Obligations created by temporary (pendente lite) court orders during a divorce proceeding do not survive the final decree of divorce; they merge into the final judgment and are extinguished unless expressly preserved therein.
Facts:
- After thirty-two years of marriage and raising four children to adulthood, the wife filed for divorce from the husband.
- The wife had primarily been a homemaker, though she previously worked as a beautician.
- The parties jointly acquired significant property, including a home, land, and a family-owned construction corporation, Green Country Contractors, Inc.
- During the marriage, the husband purchased musical equipment, which he considered a family asset but the wife claimed was a gift to their son.
- Throughout the divorce proceedings, the husband accrued an arrearage on temporary support payments that had been ordered by the court.
Procedural Posture:
- The wife filed a petition for divorce in the state trial court.
- The trial court issued a pendente lite order requiring the husband to pay temporary support.
- The trial court entered a final decree of divorce, which divided the marital property but did not mention the temporary support arrearage.
- The wife filed a post-decree motion asking the trial court to commute the unpaid temporary support to a final judgment.
- The trial court denied the wife's motion to commute the unpaid support to judgment.
- The wife (appellant) appealed the trial court's divorce decree and its denial of her post-decree motion 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:
Do obligations for unpaid temporary support created by an interlocutory order survive the entry of a final divorce decree, allowing for their collection through a post-decree motion?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Opala
No. Obligations from temporary orders pendente lite merge into and are extinguished by the final divorce decree. The final decree is a conclusive adjudication of all pre-existing rights between the spouses arising from the marital status. Because the final decree did not preserve the wife's claim for temporary support arrearages, her right to collect those funds was extinguished. The court reasoned that interlocutory orders are, by their nature, not final and do not carry res judicata effect; the trial court retains full control over them until it fashions the final judgment. Therefore, any claim under a temporary order must be resolved within the final decree. The court also affirmed the trial court's valuation of marital property and denial of alimony, finding the property division was not against the weight of the evidence and the wife had failed to meet her burden of demonstrating her need for alimony.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Vice Chief Justice Simms
Concurred in Parts I and II. Dissented from Part III regarding property disposition, and from Part IV regarding the refusal to reopen the case for further evidence. Dissented from Part V regarding the denial of alimony. The provided text does not contain the reasoning for this opinion.
Dissenting - Justice Hodges
Dissented from the portion of Part III that affirmed the inclusion of musical equipment as a spousal asset. The provided text does not contain the reasoning for this opinion.
Dissenting - Justice Wilson
Dissented from Part III regarding property disposition and from Part V regarding the denial of alimony. The provided text does not contain the reasoning for this opinion.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Barnes
Dissented from Part V regarding the denial of alimony. The provided text does not contain the reasoning for this opinion.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a firm "merger" doctrine for temporary orders in Oklahoma divorce law, clarifying that such orders are unenforceable after a final decree is entered unless their obligations are explicitly incorporated into that decree. This places a significant procedural burden on divorce litigants and their counsel to ensure all outstanding temporary financial obligations, like support arrearages, are calculated and included in the final judgment. The ruling emphasizes the finality of divorce decrees and prevents parties from re-litigating pre-decree matters after the fact. It also reinforces that alimony is not an entitlement, even after a long-term marriage, but must be justified by specific evidence of need that is not met by the property division.
