Teel v. Teel
766 P.2d 994, 1988 OK 151, 1988 Okla. LEXIS 167 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When equitably dividing a marital asset, a court must also equitably apportion any related potential spousal debt, even if that debt's validity against one spouse is being contested in separate, pending litigation.
Facts:
- A husband and wife built a homestead valued between $90,000 and $95,000 during their marriage.
- The husband's parents provided money for the construction of the home.
- The husband and wife executed two unsecured promissory notes in favor of the husband's parents.
- The husband's parents later filed a separate civil action against both the husband and wife to collect on the promissory notes.
- In that separate action, the husband admitted to the debt, and a default judgment was entered against him alone.
- The wife continued to contest her liability in the separate action, arguing that the money from the husband's parents was a gift, not a loan.
- At the time of the divorce property division, the homestead was unencumbered by any mortgage or lien, and the wife's liability on the notes had not yet been adjudicated.
Procedural Posture:
- Husband and Wife were sued by Husband's parents in a separate civil action to collect on promissory notes.
- A default judgment was entered against the Husband in the collection action, while the claim against the Wife remained pending.
- In the divorce proceeding, the trial court granted the divorce, awarded the homestead to the Husband, and made him solely responsible for the debt to his parents.
- The Wife appealed the property division to the Oklahoma Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals modified the decree, awarding the Wife a $45,000 money judgment as her share of the homestead's value but affirmed that the Husband was solely responsible for the debt.
- The Husband, as petitioner, sought and was granted a writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma to review the Court of Appeals' decision.
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 court in a divorce proceeding err by assigning the sole responsibility for a potential, but unadjudicated, spousal debt to one party while equitably dividing the related marital asset between both parties?
Opinions:
Majority - Opala, J.
Yes. A court errs by assigning sole responsibility for a potential spousal debt to one party while equitably dividing the related marital asset. A divorce proceeding is one of equitable cognizance, and a just and reasonable division of the marital estate requires consideration of both assets and liabilities to determine the net worth. It is inequitable to allow one spouse to receive an interest in an asset without also allocating to them a share of the potential liability incurred to create that asset. The appellate court's equal distribution of the homestead asset necessitates an equal allocation of the wife's potential homestead-related indebtedness. Therefore, the division must be modified so that if, and only if, the wife is found liable on the promissory notes in the collateral litigation, the debt shall be borne equally by both spouses.
Dissenting - Alma Wilson, J.
No. The majority errs by making the disposition of the divorce action contingent upon a separate civil case. At the time of the divorce, the homestead was legally unencumbered, and no evidence of a spousal debt was established within the divorce proceeding itself. The proper course of action would have been to join the third-party creditors (the parents) in the divorce action or consolidate the two cases. This would allow the divorce judge, who has all the facts of the spousal relationship, to determine whether the funds were a gift or a loan and make a final, equitable distribution of all marital assets and liabilities in a single proceeding.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that divorce courts must account for contingent or unadjudicated liabilities when dividing a marital estate to achieve an equitable outcome. By linking the division of an asset to its related potential debt, the court prevents one party from receiving a windfall—the benefit of an asset without the corresponding risk of its acquisition cost. This precedent guides lower courts to look beyond the immediate, settled balance sheet and craft decrees that account for pending litigation that could affect the net value of the marital estate, thereby ensuring a more fundamentally fair distribution.
Unlock the full brief for Teel v. Teel