CHILDERS v. CHILDERS
382 P.3d 1020
| Okla. | 2016Background
- Tracey (wife) and Kelly (husband) Childers divorced after a marriage that produced multiple medical-related business entities; wife is an active physician whose license was integral to several businesses.
- A receiver (experienced accountant familiar with the businesses) was appointed and produced accrual-basis profit & loss statements, asset/liability schedules, and appraisals for real property and aircraft.
- At trial the receiver and parties testified; husband did not present an alternative expert or object to the receiver’s valuations and only offered his own statements about value.
- Trial court valued and divided the marital estate, awarding the wife approximately $519,020 in equity, the husband $177,942, and awarding husband $150,000 alimony in lieu of property; each party was ordered to pay its own attorney fees.
- Court of Civil Appeals reversed in part, remanding for proof of “fair market value” of businesses and directing a ruling on attorney fees; Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Tracey) | Defendant's Argument (Kelly) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did trial court err in using accrual-basis accounting to value businesses? | Receiver’s accrual-based statements are reliable; receiver credible and standard in practice. | Accrual basis does not show fair market value; valuation against clear weight of evidence. | No error — trial court’s valuation not against clear weight of evidence; husband failed to present alternative evidence. |
| Was the property division just and reasonable? | Division equitable given wife’s role generating income, license-tied businesses, and greater debt allocation to wife. | Division disproportionately favored wife (husband claims ~38.7% share). | Division was equitable — when alimony in lieu of property is accounted for, division nearly equal (≈47% v. 53%) and practical considerations supported award. |
| Did trial court abuse discretion by ordering each party to pay own attorney fees? | Each received substantial assets and cash; equities do not favor fee award to husband. | Husband requested remand/hearing under statute for fees but offered no specific factual showing at appeal. | No abuse of discretion — court balanced equities and retained usual result that each party pays own fees absent special showing. |
| Should remand require proof of "fair market value" of businesses? | Receiver’s methods and testimony sufficed; husband could have produced valuation evidence at trial. | Court of Civil Appeals demanded fair market value evidence. | Supreme Court vacated C.A. result and affirmed trial court — no remand required because proper evidence was presented and not rebutted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Johnson, 674 P.2d 539 (Okla. 1983) (trial court may adopt any reasonable valuation method; valuation not disturbed absent clear weight of evidence)
- Carpenter v. Carpenter, 657 P.2d 646 (Okla. 1983) (affirming use of book-value method where reasonable)
- Ford v. Ford, 766 P.2d 950 (Okla. 1988) (trial valuation of business interests will be upheld despite speculative elements when supported by evidence)
- Teel v. Teel, 766 P.2d 994 (Okla. 1988) (net worth may be determined by assets minus liabilities; equitable division need not be equal)
- Honeywell v. Honeywell, 344 P.2d 589 (Okla. 1959) (if a party offers no evidence to rebut valuation, trial court’s finding stands)
- Hickman v. Hickman, 937 P.2d 85 (Okla. 1997) (where division is roughly equal, each party generally bears own appeal-related fees)
- Kerby v. Kerby, 164 P.3d 1053 (Okla. 2007) (reasonableness of attorney fees rests in trial court’s discretion; courts should balance equities)