Lawson v. Lawson
| Decision Date | 03 April 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 36515,36515 |
| Citation | 295 P.2d 769,1956 OK 113 |
| Parties | Ruth LAWSON, Plaintiff in Error, v. W. B. LAWSON, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Unless its application is waived by the parties the statutory provision relating to division of the property between divorced parties intends that property be so divided that the portion awarded to one spouse is free from the claims or domination of the other, and there is a complete severance of common title.
Appeal from the District Court of Rogers County, Oklahoma; Josh J. Evans, Trial Judge.
Action by Ruth Lawson, Plaintiff, against W. B. Lawson, Defendant, for a divorce and property settlement. From a judgment awarding each party an undivided interest in the realty, Plaintiff has appealed. Reversed and remanded with directions.
Bassmann & Gordon, Claremore, for plaintiff in error.
Frank Leslie, Tulsa, for defendant in error.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff in the trial court, Ruth Lawson, from that part of a divorce decree wherein the court made a division of the property jointly acquired by her and by the defendant, W. B. Lawson, her husband, during their married life. The parties will be referred to in the same order as they there appeared.
The parties were married on April 17, 1945, and lived together as man and wife until the filing of the petition, herein, on August 1, 1953. Both were industrious and economical persons with better than average business ability. At the trial, the evidence was, in many respects, in sharp conflict but was amply sufficient to support all findings of the trial court contained in the journal entry of judgment, wherein plaintiff was granted a divorce on grounds of extreme cruelty. All of the jointly acquired property was specifically designated and divided between the parties as follows:
'* * * the plaintiff is hereby awarded her Oldsmobile Sedan subject to the mortgage thereon and an undivided 1/4 interest in and to all of the property owned by the parties subject to the incumbrances thereon which consist of two mortgages in the total sum of $4800.00, taxes in the sum of $225.00, a bill in the sum of $100.00, a mortgage on the farm equipment in the sum of $500.00; the defendant is awarded his DeSota Automobile subject to the mortgage thereon and an undivided 3/4 interest in all of the property owned by the parties and subject to the incumbrances thereon; the plaintiff is hereby granted exclusive possession of the Cafe, furnishing and equipment, the defendant granted exclusive possession of the remaining properties and each party is accountable to the other for the income derived therefrom.'
From that judgment, the plaintiff has perfected this appeal. Plaintiff's principal argument is that the judgment was in violation of the provisions of 12 O.S.1951 § 1278, which is as follows:
'As to such property, whether real or personal, as shall have been acquired by the parties jointly during their marriage, whether the title thereto be in either or both of said parties, the court shall make such division between the parties respectively as may appear just and reasonable, by a division of the property in kind, or by setting the same apart to one of the parties, and requiring the other thereof to pay such sum as may be just and proper to effect a fair and just division thereof.'
The contention made is that, by virtue of said statute, the court has no authority to award the parties undivided interests in the property; that such an award was not 'a division of the property in kind' as required by said statute; that, since it was not divided 'in kind,' it should have been awarded to one of the parties and an equitable sum be required to be paid to the other.
An analysis of the above quoted statute reveals that the latter part of it is confusingly worded. It is clearly apparent that the Legislature did not intend that, if the property could not be divided in kind, one party should receive all the property and, in addition, receive payments...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crawford v. Crawford
...or the income derived therefrom," and "property awarded to each should be free from the claims or domination of the other."); Lawson v. Lawson , 1956 OK 113, ¶ 0, 295 P.2d 769 (Syllabus by the Court) (Property is to "be so divided that the portion awarded to one spouse is free from the clai......
-
Matthews v. Matthews
...121; Kupka v. Kupka, 190 Okl. 392, 124 P.2d 389, 391 (1942); Brannon v. Brannon, 207 Okl. 529, 250 P.2d 447, 450 (1952); Lawson v. Lawson, 1956 OK 113, 295 P.2d 769, 771; Blount v. Blount, 1967 OK 74, 425 P.2d 474, 477; Williams v. Williams, 1967 OK 97, 428 P.2d 218, 222.6 Mills v. Mills, 1......
-
Mills v. Mills
...the Husband relies on the cases of Kupka v. Kupka, 190 Okl. 392, 124 P.2d 389; Brannon v. Brannon, 207 Okl. 529, 250 P.2d 447; Lawson v. Lawson, Okl., 295 P.2d 769; Blount v. Blount, Okl.,425 P.2d 474; and Williams v. Williams, Okl., 428 P.2d 218. While that line of authority clearly does s......
-
Gress v. Kuhn (In re Gress)
...severed the title to the farm property in favor of Husband. Further, according to one authority cited by the Blount Court, Lawson v. Lawson, 1956 OK 113, 295 P.2d 769, severance of title and a decree ordered lien is a property award free from the claims or domination of the other.2 More imp......