Dixon v. Dixon, 84334
| Decision Date | 14 May 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 84334,No. 3,84334,3 |
| Citation | 1996 OK CIV APP 61,919 P.2d 28 |
| Parties | 1996 OK CIV APP 61 Nita Jo DIXON, Appellant, v. Kenneth DIXON, Appellee. Court of Appeals of Oklahoma, Division |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma |
In this appeal from a divorce action, Appellant Nita Jo Dixon (Wife) argues that the trial court erred in characterizing certain properties as joint marital assets rather than her separate property. Wife argues testimony by Appellee Kenneth Dixon (Husband), admitted over her objection, about the source of certain property which the parties had stipulated was joint marital property should not have been allowed into evidence. She claims that because of these errors a monetary award given her to equalize the property division was too low by over forty thousand dollars.
Such allegations of error in a divorce action require us to review all of the evidence, and to disturb the trial court's judgment only if we determine the trial court's decision was an abuse of discretion and clearly contrary to the weight of the evidence. Forristall v. Forristall, 831 P.2d 1017 (Okla.App.1992). Further, because a divorce is an action of equitable cognizance, the trial court is vested with wide discretion in dividing property. Peters v. Peters, 539 P.2d 26 (Okla.1975). Oklahoma's statutory law provides only that marital property be distributed in a manner which is "just and reasonable" and that end may be accomplished by either severing property and awarding part to each party or by awarding property to one and compensation to the other. Teel v. Teel, 766 P.2d 994 (Okla.1988). Such a division need not be absolutely "equal," but it must be equitable. Stansberry v. Stansberry, 580 P.2d 147 (Okla.1978).
When faced with conflicting testimony, the trial court, who has the opportunity to view both the record ultimately transmitted on appeal and the behavior and demeanor of the witnesses, will be affirmed unless the record demonstrates an abuse of discretion or that its determination is against the clear weight of the evidence. See Mueggenborg v. Walling, 836 P.2d 112 (Okla.1992). It is not enough that the evidence will support an opposing viewpoint, and the trial court's judgment need not rest on uncontradicted evidence. Carpenter v. Carpenter, 645 P.2d 476 (Okla.1982). The burden of showing that the trial court abused its discretion in adjusting the rights to marital property is upon the party complaining. Martin v. Martin, 206 Okl. 35, 240 P.2d 1057 (1952); Lincoln v. Lincoln, 840 P.2d 41 (Okla.App.1992). With these standards in mind, we review the errors urged on appeal.
Wife argues the trial court should not have allowed into evidence any testimony about how an acreage, known as the "ranch," was acquired because the parties agreed that the ranch was a joint asset. However, she does not demonstrate how this error, if any, entitles her to reversal.
Both parties asked that the ranch be awarded to them. Husband testified, over Wife's objection, that a part of the ranch had been inherited from his family. This testimony was not offered in an attempt to re-characterize the ranch as separate property, but, rather, to demonstrate to the trial court why Husband wanted the property to be awarded to him. Factors such as a familial connection, a party's efforts, or a sentimental attachment may be considered by the trial court when deciding whether to award the property to one of the parties, order it to be sold, or order that it be divided. The total value of the ranch was included in the marital estate and resulted, at least in part, in Wife receiving a monetary award to equalize the property division. On this record, Wife has not shown how admission of this evidence requires reversal.
Wife was fully compensated for her interest in the "ranch," including the interest which was given to her by Husband when the inherited land was placed in joint tenancy. Wife has not demonstrated any prejudicial error as a result of admitting this historical evidence for the limited purpose of assisting the trial court in deciding which of the parties should receive possession of the property. In the absence of prejudicial error, we will not disturb the trial court's decision admitting this evidence. See Wall v. Partridge, 466 P.2d 628 (Okla.1970).
Wife also claims the trial court erred in classifying some jewelry and an insurance policy as joint marital property rather than...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dorn v. Heritage Trust Co.
...a divorce is an action of equitable cognizance, the trial court is vested with wide discretion in dividing the property. Dixon v. Dixon, 1996 OK CIV APP 61, 919 P.2d 28. Applying that standard, we must review the record for any abuse of discretion and determine if the findings of the trial ......
-
Woodard v. Woodard
...and awarding Husband sixty-five and twenty-five one hundredths percent (65.25%) of his future benefits from Plan A. See Dixon v. Dixon, 1996 OK CIV APP 61, 919 P.2d 28. ¶ 13 Husband contends that, pursuant to 11 O.S.2005 49-106.1(F), Plan B, the Firefighters Deferred Option Plan payment is ......