Wood v. Wood
793 P.2d 1372, 1990 OK CIV APP 49, 61 O.B.A.J. 1963 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a divorce action, a trial court has wide discretion to equitably divide marital property and award support alimony by considering the non-monetary contributions of a homemaker spouse as a key factor in the acquisition of the marital estate and by basing support alimony on the parties' accustomed standard of living during the marriage.
Facts:
- The parties married in 1961 and were together for 27 years, raising three children.
- Appellant (husband) built a highly successful career as a financial consultant, ranking in the top 10% of his firm, while Appellee (wife) was a homemaker who raised the children and cared for elderly family members.
- The Appellee sacrificed her own career and further education to support the Appellant's career and manage the family home.
- The family enjoyed a high standard of living, including private schooling for the children, exotic vacations, and expensive gifts.
- In 1982, the Appellant began an extra-marital affair which continued for several years, leading to periodic separations.
- During a period of reconciliation, the Appellant gave the Appellee a three-carat diamond ring he had inherited.
Procedural Posture:
- In September 1986, the Appellant (husband) filed a petition for divorce in the trial court on the grounds of incompatibility.
- The Appellee (wife) answered and filed a counterclaim for divorce on the grounds of adultery.
- The trial court granted a divorce to both parties on their respective grounds.
- The trial court divided the marital estate, awarding Appellee $75,000 in property division alimony, $507,000 in support alimony payable over 15 years, and 76% of her attorney fees.
- The Appellant (husband) appealed the judgment of the trial court to the Oklahoma Court of Appeals, arguing the property division and alimony awards were excessive and an abuse of discretion.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court abuse its discretion in its division of property and award of support alimony in a long-term marriage where one spouse was the primary earner and the other was a homemaker who contributed to the family's success through domestic efforts?
Opinions:
Majority - Hunter, Vice-Chief Judge
No. The trial court's awards for property division and support alimony did not constitute an abuse of discretion. A divorce is an action of equitable cognizance, and the trial court's decision will not be disturbed unless it is clearly against the weight of the evidence. The court found that both parties equally contributed to the creation of the marital estate—the Appellant through his business career and the Appellee through her domestic efforts, which enabled his success. Therefore, awarding the Appellee approximately 45% of the property and 40% of the retirement benefits was an equitable, not an abusive, division. The support alimony award was justified by the Appellee's need, which was created by the marital lifestyle, and the Appellant's ability to pay. After a 27-year absence from the workforce, the Appellee's earning capacity is minimal, and she is entitled to support commensurate with the station in life she helped create. The court also affirmed the attorney's fee award, noting the Appellant's conduct, such as concealing assets in a secret bank account, exacerbated the litigation and increased costs.
Analysis:
This decision strongly affirms the legal principle that a homemaker's non-monetary contributions are of substantial value and must be given significant weight in the equitable distribution of a marital estate. It solidifies the 'partnership' theory of marriage, where the contributions of the domestic partner are seen as enabling the financial success of the earning partner. The ruling reinforces that support alimony is not merely for subsistence but can be used to maintain a lifestyle commensurate with that enjoyed during the marriage, particularly after a long-term union where one spouse has sacrificed their own career potential. The case also serves as precedent that a party's misconduct during litigation, such as hiding assets, can be a factor in awarding property and attorney's fees.
