*1 ¶ WINCHESTER, V.C.J.,
LAVENDER, HARGRAVE, OPALA,
KAUGER, EDMONDSON, TAYLOR,
COLBERT, JJ., concur. C.J., WATT, disqualified.
Lora Gail RAY,
Kenneth Allen Defendant-
Appellant. 101,392.
No.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
9,May
635 pickup truck dur- trial. She drove husband’s year high Before ing her school. senior jointly she with her marriage the owned pickup Silverado mother a 1989 Chevrolet damaged an truck that had been in accident.2 majority of kept she the the Wife testified wedding ring, wedding gifts, as well as the personal property from the and has all the keep. she wishes to When she in 2004 moved of the home March there out may in their bank account. have been majority that amount withdrew the She left, leaving a balance about when she during marriage, but worked the She $150. school, go to quit for a 6-month although she did.” Whenever she “never anything her husband would mention to Williams, Williams, D. Susan D. Susan say college really he no.” Ac- about “would OK, P.C., Watonga, Appellee. wife, up opportunity gave cording to she Woodward, Wynne Traynor, Long, K. Paul got she mar- to further her education when P.C., Enid, OK, Woodward, Appellant.1 & high school. graduating ried after She Community now wants to attend Redlands OPALA, J. College in El Reno and needs funds do so. working for she was At time trial $5.30 dispositive 1 The issue certiorari last three months before an hour. For the award of the trial court erred its a cohabiting with new trial she had been to the wife. We answer provider two approximately male who lives the affirmative. place employment and she blocks from her work “a few times.” his truck to has driven I he a home that 5 testified owns Husband THE ANATOMY OF LITIGATION 30-year mort- bought in which he (husband) Ray 2 Allen and Lora Kenneth pickup 250 gage. a 1999 Ford He also owns (wife) Ray married on 18 June were Gail purchased years 3 before the truck that was parties separated months later 2002. The pickup truck while marriage. Wife drove on 31 and wife filed for divorce March year dating during her they senior were born of this union. No children were per- kept He several items high school. explained court that the disso- sonalty during the mar- purchased that were proceedings would be conducted lution riage the home.3 When withdrew coun- summary proceeding” in which “quasi in March funds from their bank account leading ques- to ask sel would be allowed insufficient cover left an amount she parties only witnesses. tions. The were written outstanding checks that had been or admitted. No exhibits were offered he had not made earlier. At time the 1999 Ford 250 payment final due on testimony, she was According to wife’s a balance of pickup was also truck. There marriage. years time of the old shortly loan he incurred owed on bank years old at the time of $900 Her husband was kept pur- that were several items those for the 3.Husband herein are counsel 1. Identified appear marriage—a computer, certiorari parties on the a com- whose names chased dishwasher, machine, desk, briefs. puter washing conditioner, treadmill, some air small the insur- Wife that after the accident testified heaters. paid salvage $231 company for the value of ance pickup truck. the 1989 Chevrolet Silverado marriage. paid produee after debts He these shows the evidence encouraged the time of trial. He wife to provide support does not for an college, go award, but had no interest she point rather than to some evidence attending. explained He that because of his obligee’s obligor’s pay. need and eligible veteran status she would have been *3 ¶ support alimony 9 Wife asserts the grant for a for a loan. student or low-interest by is award warranted the evidence and is scholarship program There was offered quantum payment reasonable in its through company. He stated that wife’s schedule. parents help defray to also offered expenses. school
¶ 6 trial court marital The dissolved the Ill bond, separate proper- divided and aside set ty spouses,4 of the the wife awarded THE LAW’S DEMONSTRATED-NEED support alimony payable in 15 STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR $1,000 monthly
months at rate of the ALIMONY AWARD monthly first three months and for the $500 ¶ 10 A suit for divorce is one of year. next equitable cognizance. The court’s de ¶ appeal 7 Husband’s seeks our re- will cree be left undisturbed unless found to support alimony view of the award. He ar- contrary clearly weight be to the of the evid gues that the award was neither reasonable jurisprudence ence.5 Oklahoma’s extant supported by nor Court the evidence. The of support alimony6 defines aas need-based Appeals panel Civil affirmed. One member concept.7 purpose Its is to cushion the eco dissenting view lack rested his on the of impact post-marriage nomic of transition and proof to demonstrate wife’s need for spouse’s readjustment gainful employ to support alimony and husband’s to ment. Demonstrated is need established pay it. are in with We accord the dissent’s by totality proof obligee’s the of the assessment the record. financial condition.8 to Factors be consid ered include: a demonstrated need for ali II mony during post-divorce a reasonable reha THE ON ARGUMENTS CERTIORARI readjustment period; parties’ bilitative the ¶ life; argues length station the the sup- 8 Husband the trial court’s port alimony ages supported by spouses; and the of the earning award is not the the capacity parties evidence. He claims of the as physi COCA misallocated the as well their means; persuasion burden of for an award cal condition and financial spous Husband, of support alimony. According style to es’ accustomed of living; evidence of a appellant/obligor’s appeal spouse’s burden own income-producing capacity and parties 4. right The trial court support awarded as their mon-law wife to from her separate Funnell, property personal property acquired 69, 13, all husband.” v. Funnell 1978 OK 1319, prior marriage, separate Poloke, property all ac- 584 P.2d In v. 1322. Poloke quired 149, 4, 535, separation, 70, since the date of and all mari- OK 130 P. 37 Okl. the court property currently possession. tal their The defines as "an allowance which the hus court, pickup pays, husband was by awarded the 1999 Ford 250 band order of the to his wife for subject any him, truck living separate indebtedness that burdens it. her maintenance while from divorce, brought where no suit is or pendency or divorce suit after the di ¶¶ 12, 14-15, Younge Younge, 5. v. 2002 OK granted.” vorce is 972; 966, McLaughlin McLaughlin, P.3d v. 34, 13, 257, 260-61; OK 979 P.2d Johnson v. Johnson, 117, ¶23, 539, Alimony 1983 OK 674 P.2d 547. 7. is awarded based on demonstrated 5, ¶ 14, Younge Younge, supra need. 971; note Johnson, supra Johnson v. note 5 at (5th ed.1979), 6. In Black's Law Dictionary it is 546; Kirkland, 98,¶¶ 25, 27, Kirkland v. 1971 OK "alimony” said that the word comes from the 488 P.2d “alimonia,” sustenance, meaning Latin and de- support notes "the sustenance or wife her divorced husband." It "stems the com- Id. divorce) only by allowed post-divorce or absolute was for the transi- the time needed special today Because tion.9 act of Parliament.13 separate prop- control of her full easily erty and can obtain absolute A. divorce, the earlier rationale ascribed duty provide Alimony continuing Burden the husband a Seeker Has The Demonstrating A longer legal Need is no viable basis for Alimony Support post-divorce support alimony. The seeker affirmatively
carries the burden of
demon
B.
strating the
excess
need for
funds
cushion
*4
Appellant
The
Has The Burden
depen
Of
from marital
the economic transition
Producing
dency
A Record
employment.10
The demonstrated-
Sufficient
today is
need standard of
different
To Show Error
(here
early
century. Then
of the
nineteenth
¶
appellant
12 The
bears the undi
required
England)
and
a wife was not
producing
for
responsibility
vided
a court
spousal support.11
a
show need for
That
adequately
a record14 that will
review
legally presumed. The
need was
ecclesiasti
demonstrate error
the trial court’s decree
grant
a
cal courts could
divorces mensa
findings
contrary
are
to the
because the
(from
board,
to us
thoro
known
as
et
bed
weight
appealing party
of evidence.15 The
separation).12
legal separation,
In a
legal
appeal
must
in the
for
all
include
record
property
had
husband
control of the wife’s
necessary
materials
for corrective relief.16
duty
imposed upon
law
him a
and the
Legal
presumed
will not
from a
error
be
supporting her. A
a vincu-
continue
divorce
(from
matrimony
the bonds of
silent record.17
lo matrimonii
Holdsworth,
dependence
History
marriage
A
205-06
9.
woman's financial
English
Law
A
Clark, Jr.,
(1965);
longer legally
presence
no
H.
Its
must
Homer
presumed.
The Law
Domestic
16.1,
(2d
weight
by
§
be
the clear
of the evidence.
5,
at
619
States
proved
United
Relations
in the
14,
¶
971;
Radin, Anglo
supra
Younge Younge,
ed.1988);
v.
note
at
Max
Legal
American
Histo-
¶
5,
13,
McLaughlin,
McLaughlin
supra
269,
(1936).
at
v.
note
ry
§
at 512-513
260-61.
13. Id.
14,
¶
5,
971;
Younge Younge, supra
v.
10.
note
at
Johnson,
23, 546;
¶
supra
Johnson v.
5 at
note
Co.,
Hulsey
Ins.
14.
v. Mid-America
1989
Preferred
Kirkland,
7,
25, 27,
¶¶
supra
v.
at
Kirkland
note
107, 7,
932,
¶
(citing
P.2d
v.
OK
777
936
Eckel
1227.
Adair,
¶
86, 9,
921, 924);
P.2d
1984 OK
698
46, 7,¶
Original,
Hamid
Sew
1982 OK
645
Carbone,
v.
Futility
June
Coherence:
11.
The
496,
Law,
P.2d
497.
Principles
ALI's
4
& Fam. Stud.
J.L.
43, 46,
Hurlbut,
citing
&
Vernier
The Historical
Background Alimony Law
Its Present Stat-
reviewing
prius
a
15. A
court will not disturb nisi
Structure,
utory
Contemp.
Law &
Probs.
6
197
equity
decision in
absent an abuse
discretion
(1939).
contrary
finding
clearly
a
that it is
to the
or
Johnson,
weight
supra
v.
of evidence. Johnson
nor
12. Neither the three common-law courts
544;
Kiddie,
15,
¶
at
v.
OK
note 5 at
Kiddie
1977
(or
marriage
chancery
power
had
to dissolve a
69, 3,
139, 140-41;
Peters,
V
P.2d
Peters v.
563
decree).
separate
grant
A
a
maintenance
divorce
¶
114, 9,
26, 27.
1975 OK
539 P.2d
board”)
(from
et
a mensa
thoro
"bed and
could
courts;
procured
be
from ecclesiastical
divorce
responsibility
appellant
An
bears
for in-
16.
total
("from
a vinculo
the bond of matri
matrimonii
cluding
appellate
all
nec-
in the
materials
record
dissolution)
mony”,
which means
Hulsey
essary
v.
relief.
Mid-Amer-
for corrective
might
only by
special act of
be obtained
Co.,
14,
936;
¶ 7,
supra
at
ica
Ins.
note
Preferred
jurisdiction
British Parliament. Divorce
was
14,
7,¶
Original, supra
at
Hamid
note
497.
v. Sew
transferred in 1857 from ecclesiastical tribunals
system by
to the civil court
the Matrimonial
Johnson,
¶ 24,
1857,
supra
5 at
at
v.
note
&
Johnson
Causes Act of
20
21 Viet. c.
See
14,
Reaves,
14,
490,
supra
¶32,
Original,
(citing
v.
note
546
Hamid Sew
v.
OK
82 P.
Reaves
6,¶
497);
494,
240;
Irwin,
29,
v.
Chamberlin Chamber
OK
at
lin,
645 P.2d
15 Okl.
Irwin
721,
4,
(Scott, J., dissenting);
720 P.2d
723-24.
37 P.
15 W.
works week her WATT, C.J., WINCHESTER, V.C.J., monthly expenses her living plans and future LAVENDER, HARGRAVE, OPALA, (d) (e) expenses, physical condition, her EDMONDSON, TAYLOR, COLBERT, (f) education, of her cost desired JJ., concur. her station in of living life or standard ¶ KAUGER, J., dissents. changed separation; since (g) how much cohabiting provider her new contributes to ¶ KAUGER, J., dissenting. monthly any Neither needs. is there (a) evidence pay the husband’s deny I would improvidently certiorari as (b) home, support alimony, of his value granted. (c) (d) worth, condition, physical his net his (e) living monthly standard based on in- expenses.18
come and
¶ 15 holdWe the record tendered for our
review is devoid of critical necessary a determination of based demonstrated need. The judge sitting 18. We assume expense proceed- that in a post-appeal small The added of a community many is familiar with the status ing by early post-reversal can be saved settle- people community, but there is no substi- ment. proof. tute in law for record