Mathis v. Mathis
2004 OK CIV APP 32, 91 P.3d 662, 75 O.B.A.J. 1501 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Oklahoma law, support alimony terminates upon the recipient's remarriage unless the recipient can prove, within 90 days, the existence of extraordinary circumstances necessitating its continuation. A significant disparity between the financial support provided by a new spouse and the previous alimony payments, resulting in a diminished lifestyle, does not in itself constitute an extraordinary circumstance.
Facts:
- Barbara L. Mathis (Wife) and Billy J. Mathis (Ex-Husband) divorced in 2001 after a 22-year marriage.
- The divorce decree ordered Ex-Husband to pay Wife substantial support alimony for ten years, with payments terminating upon her remarriage.
- On March 30, 2002, Wife married Dan Bales (Husband).
- Wife's new Husband, Bales, had voluntarily left a banking career where he earned over $100,000 per year.
- At the time of the legal proceedings, Bales was employed as a fitness instructor and consultant with an income insufficient to contribute to Wife's living expenses.
- Bales had no physical or mental disability that would prevent him from seeking higher-paying employment.
- Ex-Husband's after-tax monthly income was stipulated to be $225,349.00, which was not materially different from the time of the divorce.
Procedural Posture:
- Within ninety days of her remarriage, Barbara L. Mathis (Wife) filed an application in the trial court to continue receiving support alimony from her ex-husband, Billy J. Mathis.
- The trial court conducted a hearing on the merits of the application.
- The trial court denied Wife's application, ruling that her alimony terminated because her new husband was capable of earning a living and supporting her.
- Wife, as Appellant, appealed the trial court's order to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals, with Ex-Husband as Appellee.
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 a recipient spouse demonstrate the 'extraordinary circumstances' required under 43 O.S. § 134(B) to continue receiving support alimony after remarriage simply by showing that the new spouse cannot provide a lifestyle comparable to the one afforded by the alimony payments?
Opinions:
Majority - Joplin, J.
No. A recipient spouse does not demonstrate the extraordinary circumstances required to continue support alimony after remarriage merely by showing that the new spouse provides a lower standard of living than the alimony did. The court held that Oklahoma's statute, 43 O.S. § 134(B), creates a strong presumption that alimony terminates upon remarriage, reflecting the public policy that the legal obligation of support shifts to the new spouse. To overcome this, the recipient spouse bears the burden of proving that 'extraordinary circumstances' justify continuation. The court explicitly rejected the argument that an inability to maintain a prior lifestyle with a new spouse meets this high standard, aligning with jurisdictions that hold it is 'illogical and unreasonable' for a person to receive support from both a current and a former spouse simultaneously. Prior Oklahoma cases were distinguished as dicta because they turned on the timeliness of the application, not the substantive standard for continuation.
Analysis:
This case establishes for the first time in Oklahoma the 'extraordinary circumstances' test for continuing alimony after a recipient spouse's remarriage. By adopting this stringent standard, the court significantly raises the bar for ex-spouses seeking continued support, making such awards rare exceptions rather than common modifications. The decision clarifies that the new spouse's voluntary career choices or lower earning potential are not sufficient grounds to keep an ex-spouse's alimony obligation alive. This precedent solidifies the legal and public policy principle that the primary duty of spousal support shifts decisively to the new marital partner upon remarriage.
Unlock the full brief for Mathis v. Mathis