Whitley v. Whitley, 67952
| Decision Date | 21 June 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 67952,67952 |
| Citation | 757 P.2d 849 |
| Parties | 1988 OK CIV APP 6 Peggy Sue WHITLEY, Appellant, v. Earl Leroy WHITLEY, Appellee. . Court of Appeals of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City Division |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma |
Appeal from the District Court of Garfield County; Gary L. Maxey, judge.
L. Lee Ingraham, Enid, for appellant.
Ronald G. Franklin, Enid, for appellee.
Upon consideration of the briefs and the record in the above-styled matter, the Court finds:
(1) Appellant seeks review of that portion of the divorce decree dividing the assets and liabilities of the parties. Appellant contends that the distribution was not fair and equitable and constitutes an abuse of discretion.
(2) Appellant argues that the trial court erred in ordering her to pay a debt of Appellee acquired prior to the marriage. We agree. The debt in question is the debt to Beneficial Finance. The record reflects a portion of that debt represents a loan incurred by Appellee prior to the marriage. A portion of the debt was incurred by the Appellant, individually, during the course of the marriage. The record is unclear as to the specific amounts owed Beneficial Finance by Appellant and Appellee at the time of the property division. Title 12 O.S. Supp.1985, § 1278 requires the trial court to make a division of the property acquired by the parties jointly during the marriage, but makes no specific reference to jointly-acquired debts. Courts have however, achieved the division of property by dividing the marital estate based upon its "net" worth, a value achieved after subtracting liabilities from total asset value. Stansberry v. Stansberry, 580 P.2d 147 (Okla.1978). The effect of such a division is to divide the outstanding indebtedness. Therefore, by implication, the trial court has the authority to consider and to require the parties to pay specific debts of the marriage to achieve the property division.
In the case before us a portion of the Beneficial Finance debt is a separate debt of the appellee, acquired prior to the marriage. This cannot possibly be considered a jointly-acquired debt in furtherance of any marital goal. Appellee's portion is his separate debt for which he is primarily liable. That portion of the property division requiring Appellant to pay Appellee's debt acquired prior to the marriage, standing alone, is a clear abuse of discretion and must be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mondelli v. Howard
...26 (S.D.1979). Courts should apportion marital debts equitably in much the same way that they divide marital assets. Whitley v. Whitley, 757 P.2d 849, 850 (Okla.Ct.App.1988); B. Goldberg, Valuation of Divorce Assets Sec. 15.311, at 510 (1984). When practicable, the debts should follow the a......
-
Mahaffey v. Mahaffey
...Trial courts have the authority to apportion marital debts in the same way they divide the marital estate. See Whitley v. Whitley, 757 P.2d 849, 850 (Okla.Ct.App.1988); 2 H. Clark, The Law of Domestic Page 624 Relations in the United States Sec. 16.4, at 198 (2d ed. 1987). When they are dea......
-
Thomas v Thomas, 99-00824
...that they apportion marital assets. Mahaffey v. Mahaffey, 775 S.W. 2d 618, 623 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989) (citing Whitley v. Whitley, 757 P.2d 849, 850 (Okla. Ct. App. 1988); 2 H. Clark, The Law of Domestic Relations in the United States § 16.4, at 198 (2d ed. 1987). When apportioning debts, cou......
-
Kingery v. Kingery, 107,637.Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma
...she had spent the withdrawn funds. “A marital debt is one which is jointly acquired in furtherance of a marital goal. Whitley v. Whitley, , 757 P.2d 849 (Okl.App.1988).” Sien v. Sien, 1994 OK CIV APP 159, ¶ 17, 889 P.2d 1268, 1272. Despite Petitioner's displeasure concerning Respondent's wi......