May v. May
1979 OK 82, 1979 Okla. LEXIS 247, 596 P.2d 536 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The enhancement in value of one spouse's separate property that is attributable to the other spouse's labor constitutes jointly acquired property subject to equitable division. Additionally, absent an agreement between the parties, a court may not impose alimony termination contingencies other than those provided by statute, namely the death of either spouse or the remarriage of the recipient spouse.
Facts:
- An elderly couple, husband aged 74 and wife aged 68, each possessed considerable separate property before their marriage.
- They executed an antenuptial agreement providing that all their separate property would retain its character and be managed separately.
- Following their remarriage to each other, the husband purchased a home using his own separate funds.
- Sometime after the purchase, the husband gifted a one-third interest in the home to his wife.
- The wife contributed to the marriage through her services as a housewife, performing household duties and maintenance.
- The spouses paid for expenses on the home in proportion to their respective ownership interests and maintained separate financial accounts consistent with their antenuptial agreement.
Procedural Posture:
- Divorce proceedings were initiated in a state trial court.
- The trial court awarded the wife a one-half interest in the marital home as a tenant in common, with a lifetime right to possess it, and also awarded support alimony terminable upon death, remarriage, or her vacation of the home.
- The wife, as appellant, appealed the trial court's decision to the Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals modified the decree, giving the wife full title to the home and removing the 'vacation of the home' alimony termination clause.
- The husband, as petitioner, sought a writ of certiorari for review by the state's highest court.
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 the increase in value of one spouse's separate property, attributable to the other spouse's labor and services, constitute jointly acquired property subject to division, and may a court impose alimony termination contingencies other than death or remarriage without the parties' agreement?
Opinions:
Majority - Opala, Justice
Yes, as to the property, and no, as to the alimony. The increase in value of one spouse's separate property attributable to the personal efforts of either spouse is considered jointly acquired property and is subject to equitable division. However, a court cannot, without the parties' agreement, make support alimony terminable on contingencies not authorized by statute. The court reasoned that while the home was purchased with the husband's separate funds and was his separate property, any measurable increase in its value resulting from the spouses' joint labor, including homemaking services, is a divisible marital asset. This is distinct from appreciation due to market forces, which would be divided according to their ownership shares. Regarding alimony, the court held that Oklahoma statute 12 O.S.Supp. 1965 § 1289 and precedent strictly limit the contingencies for terminating support alimony to the death of either spouse or the remarriage of the recipient. Therefore, the trial court impermissibly overstepped its authority by adding the wife's vacation of the home as a terminating condition.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for clarifying the division of appreciated separate property in a divorce. It establishes that a spouse's non-financial contributions, such as labor and services as a homemaker, can create a divisible marital interest in the increased value of the other spouse's separate assets. This provides an avenue for spouses without separate property to share in the wealth created during the marriage through their efforts. The ruling also reinforces the principle of statutory supremacy by strictly limiting judicial discretion in setting alimony conditions, ensuring that termination clauses are predictable and uniform unless the parties explicitly agree otherwise.
