Standefer v. Standefer
26 P.3d 104, 2001 OK 37, 2001 WL 410711 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Separate property, such as a personal injury claim, can be transmuted into marital property when spouses take affirmative actions to treat the property as jointly acquired, such as pooling their individual claims, instructing attorneys to seek a single joint settlement, and placing the proceeds into joint financial instruments.
Facts:
- Charles Standefer and Cynthia Birdsong began cohabitating in November 1988 and considered themselves to be in a common-law marriage.
- On March 30, 1992, Charles changed his insurance enrollment to list Cynthia as his wife and her two children as his stepchildren.
- On September 28, 1996, Charles came into contact with a high-voltage electrical wire, resulting in severe burns over 65% of his body and rendering him 100% disabled.
- Cynthia provided extensive care for Charles during his three-month hospital stay and subsequent rehabilitation.
- Charles and Cynthia filed a joint lawsuit against a tortfeasor, with Charles seeking compensation for his injuries and Cynthia for loss of consortium.
- Charles and Cynthia instructed their attorneys to seek one lump-sum settlement rather than separate ones and signed a 'Memorandum of Agreement' stating they chose to have all payments made jointly.
- The settlement proceeds were used to purchase three annuities, with payments structured to be deposited monthly into a bank account held jointly by Charles and Cynthia.
- The couple formally married in a ceremony on December 24, 1997, and later separated on July 26, 1998.
Procedural Posture:
- Charles Standefer and Cynthia Birdsong initiated divorce proceedings in an Oklahoma district court (trial court).
- The district court found that a common-law marriage had existed between the parties since November 1988.
- The district court ruled that the settlement funds received from 'Tortfeasor I' were marital property due to the parties' actions of treating the funds jointly.
- The court divided the marital estate, awarding approximately 62% to Charles and 38% to Cynthia.
- Charles Standefer (appellant) appealed the judgment of the district court 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:
Does a personal injury settlement lose its character as separate property and become divisible marital property when the spouses intentionally combine their individual claims, negotiate a single lump-sum settlement, and structure the payments to be made to them jointly?
Opinions:
Majority - Hodges, J.
Yes. A personal injury settlement becomes marital property when the parties' actions demonstrate a clear intent to treat it as such. In this case, Charles and Cynthia pooled their separate claims (personal injury and loss of consortium), expressly instructed their attorneys to negotiate a single joint settlement, and signed a memorandum confirming their desire for joint payments rather than separate amounts. The resulting annuities were structured to pay into a joint account, further demonstrating their intent. These actions effectively transmuted any separate interest either party had into jointly-acquired property of the marital estate, making the trial court's decision to classify the funds as marital property correct and rendering the 'analytic method' inapplicable for this specific settlement.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Summers, J.
No. The settlement funds should not be automatically classified as marital property without further inquiry; the trial court erred by failing to apply the 'analytic approach.' Oklahoma precedent, such as Crocker v. Crocker, requires courts to analyze what a personal injury award is intended to replace. Components compensating for inherently personal losses like pain, suffering, and future wages post-divorce should be classified as the injured spouse's separate property. The parties' decision to structure the settlement jointly does not alter the fundamental nature of the compensation. The case should be remanded for the trial court to conduct this analysis and allocate the proceeds accordingly, as treating compensation for agonizing personal pain as a divisible marital asset is inequitable.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the doctrine of transmutation by commingling in Oklahoma, establishing that spouses' explicit actions and intent can override the default 'analytic approach' for classifying personal injury awards. It creates a significant precedent that the manner in which a settlement is structured and handled can be more decisive than the underlying nature of the claims themselves. This ruling emphasizes that parties can, through their conduct, voluntarily convert separate property into marital property, impacting how such assets are treated in future divorce proceedings involving personal injury or workers' compensation awards.
