BARNES v. BARNES
2017 OK CIV APP 38
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2017Background
- Misty Dawn Barnes (Mother) and Benjamin Scott Barnes (Father) divorced by agreed decree on June 30, 2014; they share joint custody of two minor children.
- The decree did not allocate which parent could claim the children as tax dependents.
- Mother claimed both children as dependents in 2014.
- In February 2015 Father moved to modify child support due to employment and residence changes and sought the right to claim one child as a dependent; parties agreed on support and visitation but disputed the tax exemption.
- Trial court awarded Father the right to claim the 15-year-old and Mother the 8-year-old as dependents. Mother appealed the modification order.
- Father did not file an appellate brief; Mother raised jurisdictional and substantive arguments against modification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the right to claim a child as a tax dependent is a nonmodifiable property settlement | Mother: The exemption is a property right; under Clifton it cannot be modified post-decree | Father: (Implicit) the exemption is tied to child support and thus modifiable | Court: Right to claim a dependent is akin to child support and is modifiable under 43 O.S. §118I(A)(1) |
| Whether modification must be decided by reference to child’s best interests | Mother: Interests of the child must be considered (relies on Gibbons) | Father: Custody not at issue; tax exemption is allocation of support, not custody | Court: Gibbons (custody standard) is inapplicable; best-interest custody rule not required here |
| Whether IRC §152(e) prevents court reallocating exemption absent custodial parent’s written waiver | Mother: Without the written waiver she retains the exemption under §152(e) | Father: Court may allocate exemptions and order waiver execution | Court: Trial court may allocate exemptions and can order custodial parent to execute the waiver; §152(e) does not bar judicial reallocation |
| Whether a material change in circumstances justified modification | Mother: Contends modification not appropriate | Father: Lost oil-field job; change in income/residence justifies modification | Court: Father’s job loss is a material change in circumstances; modification was within trial court’s discretion; no abuse of discretion found |
Key Cases Cited
- Clifton v. Clifton, 801 P.2d 693 (1990) (property settlement generally not modifiable post-decree absent fraud)
- Gibbons v. Gibbons, 442 P.2d 482 (1968) (child’s best interests standard for custody modifications)
- Wilson v. Wilson, 831 P.2d 1 (1991) (trial court may allocate exemptions and order waiver execution)
- Williamson v. Williamson, 107 P.3d 589 (2005) (appellate review of child support modification: abuse of discretion/clear weight of evidence standard)
- Sneed v. Sneed, 585 P.2d 1363 (1978) (appellate reversal practice when appellee fails to file brief)
- Hamid v. Sew Original, 645 P.2d 496 (1982) (appellate principle that reversal is not automatic for appellee’s non‑filing)