Pounders v. Pounders
274 P.3d 176, 2012 WL 1154915, 2012 OK CIV APP 29 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The equitable remedy of restitutionary alimony is narrowly limited to circumstances where one spouse finances the other's education and the marriage ends before the supporting spouse can enjoy the financial benefits of that investment. It does not apply to situations where marital funds are used to pay a spouse's pre-existing child support obligations.
Facts:
- Thomas Jefferson Pounders, III (Husband) had children from a previous marriage for whom he had an ongoing child support obligation.
- Husband and Laura Elizabeth Pounders (Wife) were married in 2008.
- During their marriage, Husband used marital funds to pay his child support and other expenses for the children of his previous marriage.
- Wife was aware of these payments and personally wrote the checks for some of them.
Procedural Posture:
- Thomas Jefferson Pounders, III (Husband) and Laura Elizabeth Pounders (Wife) initiated an action for dissolution of marriage in an Oklahoma trial court.
- The trial court divided the marital property and awarded Wife approximately $22,400 in alimony in lieu of property division (restitutionary alimony) to compensate her for marital funds used to pay Husband's child support.
- Husband, as Petitioner/Appellant, appealed the trial court's order to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals, challenging the alimony award.
- Wife was the Respondent/Appellee in the appeal.
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 equitable remedy of restitutionary alimony apply to compensate a spouse for marital funds used to pay the other spouse's pre-existing child support obligations from a prior marriage?
Opinions:
Majority - Joplin, Vice-Chief Judge
No. The equitable remedy of restitutionary alimony does not apply to compensate a spouse for marital funds used to pay the other spouse's pre-existing child support obligations. The court reasoned that restitutionary alimony, as established in Hubbard v. Hubbard, is an 'extraordinary equitable remedy' created for a very specific circumstance: to prevent unjust enrichment where one spouse finances the professional education of the other and the parties divorce immediately after the education is complete, before the supporting spouse has an opportunity to enjoy the benefits of the increased earning capacity. The court explicitly refused to expand this narrow doctrine, holding that it does not authorize an award to compensate a spouse for the use of marital funds to pay a pre-existing support obligation, particularly where the spouse knew of and consented to the payments.
Analysis:
This decision significantly restricts the application of restitutionary alimony in Oklahoma, clarifying that it is not a general-purpose tool for reimbursing a spouse for any perceived financial inequity in the marriage. By confining the remedy to the specific 'professional degree' scenario from Hubbard, the court prevents parties from re-characterizing routine marital expenditures, even significant ones like child support, as 'investments' to be recouped at divorce. This reinforces the principle that a spouse's pre-existing obligations, when paid with marital funds with the knowledge and consent of the other spouse, are treated as joint marital expenses rather than a debt owed by one spouse to the other.
