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 June 30, 2014; they share joint custody of two minor children.
- Decree did not allocate which parent could claim the children as tax dependents; Mother claimed both in 2014.
- Father moved (Feb. 17, 2015) to modify child support and to claim one child as a dependent after job loss and residence changes; parties resolved support and visitation but not tax exemption.
- Trial court modified the decree, awarding Father the right to claim the 15-year-old and Mother the 8-year-old as dependents.
- Mother appealed, arguing (1) the exemption is a nonmodifiable property right, (2) the modification is not in the children’s best interests, and (3) the court must follow 26 U.S.C. §152(e) because she did not execute a waiver.
- Father did not file an appellate brief; the Court of Civil Appeals reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a tax dependency exemption is a nonmodifiable property award | Exemption is a property right; post-decretal modification is barred absent fraud | Exemption is part of child support and therefore modifiable | Court: Exemption is akin to child support and modifiable under 43 O.S. §118I(A)(1) |
| Whether modification violated children’s best interests | Modification must consider best interests (cites custody-standard cases) | Custody not at issue; exemption is a support allocation | Court: Best-interests custody standard inapplicable to tax exemption allocation |
| Whether 26 U.S.C. §152(e) prevented court from reallocating exemption absent custodial parent’s signed waiver | Mother has not signed the written waiver required by §152(e) and thus retains exemption | Trial court may allocate exemptions and order waiver execution | Court: Federal tax form rule does not prevent state court from reallocating exemption and ordering waiver execution |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in light of changed circumstances | Mother: Modification not justified | Father: Father’s job loss is a material change in circumstances warranting modification | Court: Father’s job loss is a clear material change; no abuse of discretion; modification affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Clifton v. Clifton, 801 P.2d 693 (1990) (property settlement awards generally not modifiable post-decree absent fraud)
- Wilson v. Wilson, 831 P.2d 1 (1991) (court may allocate exemptions and order custodial parent to execute waiver)
- Foster v. Foster, 662 N.W.2d 191 (Neb. 2003) (tax dependency exemption treated like child support)
- Dumas v. Tucker, 119 S.W.3d 516 (Ark. App. 2003) (right to claim children as dependents characterized as child support)
- Williamson v. Williamson, 107 P.3d 589 (2005) (appellate standard: reverse only for abuse of discretion or clear weight against evidence)
- Sneed v. Sneed, 585 P.2d 1363 (1978) (appellate practice regarding appellee brief absence)
- Hamid v. Sew Original, 645 P.2d 496 (1982) (reversal not automatic for appellee’s failure to file brief)
- Gibbons v. Gibbons, 442 P.2d 482 (1968) (custody modifications require consideration of child's best interests)