Huskey v. Batts, 46976

• Decision Date: 26 November 1974
• Docket Number: No. 46976,No. 1,46976,1
• Citation: 530 P.2d 1375
• Parties: Francis Louise HUSKEY, formerly Batts, Appellee, v. Doris Quinton BATTS, Appellant
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma

Page 1375

530 P.2d 1375

Francis Louise HUSKEY, formerly Batts, Appellee, v. Doris Quinton BATTS, Appellant.

No. 46976.

Court of Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 1.

Nov. 26, 1974.

Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Appeals

Dec. 19, 1974.

Philip R. Scott, Waurika, for appellee.

Richard D. Stone, Waurika, for appellant.

BOX, Presiding Judge:

An appeal by Doris Quinton Batts, defendant, from the trial courts ordering payment of one-half of defendant's monthly Social Security Disability payments toward alimony payments previously awarded to plaintiff wife.

On October 27, 1972, plaintiff was he was ordered to pay alimony. Later he hewas ordered to pay alimony. Later he was cited for contempt for failure to make the payments, but the court deferred the imposition of judgment. In the meantime the defendant had qualified for disability payments under the Social Security laws and, over his objection that such payments were exempt under 42 U.S.C. § 407 from execution or impoundment, the court ordered the defendant to pay one-half of his disability insurance checks into court pending final disposition of the matter, and after briefs were submitted, upon further consideration the trial court entered a final order in favor of the plaintiff that alimony payments should be made from the disability checks if necessary. Defendant took this appeal after the overruling of his motion for new trial.

The only question for consideration on this appeal is whether funds derived from disability insurance under the Social Security Act are exempt under 42 U.S.C. § 407 from execution or impoundment to pay an alimony award. This provision, a part of the Social Security legislation, states:

'The right of any person to any future payment under this subchapter shall not be transferable or assignable, at law or in equity, and none of the moneys paid or payable or rights existing under this subchapter shall be subject to execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process, or to the operation of any bankruptcy or insolvency law.'

The defendant cites cases which have construed similarly worded state exemption statutes to exempt similar funds from payment of alimony, largely on the ground that such statutes were comprehensive and absolute on the face of them with no specific exception for money obligations to dependents. E.g., Miller v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 69 Cal.2d 14, 69 Cal.Rptr. 583, 442 P.2d 663 (1968); Ogle v. Heim, 69 Cal.2d 7, 69 Cal.Rptr 579, 442 P.2d 659 (1968), app. dismd. 393 U.S. 265, 89 S.Ct. 477, 21 L.Ed.2d 426 (1968); Howard v. Howard, 166 Cal.App.2d 386, 333 P.2d 417 (1959); Utley v. Utley, 355 Mass. 469, 245 N.E.2d 435 (1969). However we are more impressed with the reasoning in Brown v. Brown, 32 Ohio App.2d 139, 288 N.E.2d 852 (1972), and the cases cited therein, in which the Ohio Court held that 42 U.S.C. § 407 did not prevent application of Social Security funds to the payment of alimony. The Ohio Court reasoned that a wife who claims alimony is not a creditor, nor the obligation to support her a debt, in the usual sense, and that the intent of the exemption in § 407 of the Social Security Act is to...