Hudson v. Hudson

• Decision Date: 15 March 1960
• Docket Number: No. 38414,38414
• Citation: 350 P.2d 596,1960 OK 70
• Parties: Harold J. HUDSON, Plaintiff in Error, v. Florence HUDSON, Defendant in Error.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Page 596

350 P.2d 596

1960 OK 70

Harold J. HUDSON, Plaintiff in Error, v. Florence HUDSON, Defendant in Error.

No. 38414.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

March 15, 1960.

Syllabus by the Court

1. An antenuptial contract, entered into between man and woman in contemplation of their marriage, that is just and reasonable will be upheld by the courts.

2. In an action for divorce and alimony between husband and wife who have executed a valid antenuptial contract which contains a provision that neither will claim alimony against the other in the event of divorce, the contract shall be upheld, and where there is no competent evidence of parties having jointly acquired additional property subsequent to their marriage, a judgment granting alimony will be reversed.

Appeal from the District Court of Wagoner County; Hon. E. G. Carroll, Judge.

Action for divorce, division of property and alimony. From judgment granting divorce, awarding division of property and alimony, plaintiff in error appeals only from judgment granting alimony. Reversed and remanded with directions.

Hughey Baker, Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

Robert J. Woolsey, Tulsa, for defendant in error.

WELCH, Justice.

This action was filed by plaintiff, Florence Hudson, against defendant, Harold J. Hudson, for divorce and alimony in the district court of Wagoner County, Oklahoma. Judgment was for divorce to each party and plaintiff was given her automobile and certain other specified items of property, and was granted a money award of $9,500, referred to as $3,000 by way of return on her cash investment in the marriage venture, and $6,500 alimony, also $500 expense for attorney's fee.

The defendant contends that the trial court committed error in rendering judgment for alimony since an antenuptial contract had been entered into between the parties prior to marriage, providing that in event of divorce neither would assert any right or claim against the other for alimony.

Plaintiff contends that the antenuptial contract is not binding upon the court concerning alimony. The cases cited to support this contention concern settlement agreements made between husband and wife after marriage and prior to divorce, therefore not in point.

We have held that an antenuptial contract entered into between a man and woman in contemplation of their marriage that is just and reasonable will be upheld by the courts. Talley v. Harris, 199 Okl. 47, 182 P.2d 765; Pence v. Cole, 85 Okl. 69, 205 P. 172, and Clark v. Clark, 201 Okl. 134, 202 P.2d 990.

Upon examination of the journal entry of judgment we observe that the trial court made a finding that both parties had been previously married, and prior to this marriage they entered into an antenuptial contract fairly, freely, understandingly and without fraud, that its provisions were reasonable and that said contract was valid. Therefore we may look to the contract to determine its provisions as to alimony. Said contract provides in part:

'It is further agreed by each of the parties hereto that in event of divorce that each will not assert any right or claim against the other for alimony or other property division and...