METCALF v. METCALF, 465 P.3d 1187

Lewis Metcalf (husband) and Bonnie Watson Metcalf (wife) married in 2001 and had no children together.
Husband owned a carpentry business (Woodmaster) and several parcels of real property he acquired before marriage.
In 2009, fearing creditors in a suit against Woodmaster, husband deeded several separate properties into wife’s name and admitted the sole purpose was to thwart creditor collection; he consulted a lawyer about the transfers.
Husband filed for dissolution in December 2014; at trial the court found separation June 4, 2011, ruled the challenged deeds void and the properties husband's separate property, and denied the wife’s request for support alimony.
The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed; the Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari, held that a fraudulent transfer to avoid creditors cannot be used to rebut the presumption of an interspousal gift, reversed the trial court on property division and remanded for equitable division, affirmed denial of alimony, and ordered each party to bear their own appeal costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the presumption that an interspousal transfer is a gift can be rebutted by evidence the transfer was made to defraud creditors	Watson: A transfer made to defraud creditors is a fraudulent transfer and bars Metcalf from rebutting the gift presumption	Metcalf: He never intended a gift; he transferred property solely to shield it from creditors and thus retained separate ownership	Court: Evidence of an illicit/fraudulent transfer to avoid creditors may not be used to rebut the presumption of an interspousal gift; the presumption stands and property must be equitably divided on remand
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying support alimony	Watson: She needs support alimony; trial court erred in denying it	Metcalf: Wife failed to show need and he lacks ability to pay; she had ample time and ability to work	Court: No abuse of discretion; denial of support alimony is supported by the record
Whether husband is entitled to appeal-related attorney fees	Metcalf: Seeks fees as prevailing party under statutes	Watson: Appeal has merit; no equitable basis to shift fees	Court: Appeal was not frivolous and no overriding equities exist; each party bears own appeal-related fees

Smith v. Villareal, 298 P.3d 533 (Okla. 2012) (presumption of gift on interspousal transfer can be rebutted by clear evidence of contrary intent)
Larman v. Larman, 991 P.2d 536 (Okla. 1999) (title added for a collateral, non-donative purpose rebuts gift presumption)
Burrows v. Burrows, 886 P.2d 984 (Okla. 1994) (fraudulent conveyance to avoid child support/alimony can be nullified; homestead exemption context)
Hutchings v. Hutchings, 250 P.3d 324 (Okla. 2011) (trial court has wide discretion in property division and alimony determinations)