Title: Johnson v. Snow
Citation: 2022 OK 86
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: November 1, 2022

Johnson v. Snow Annotate this Case Justia Opinion Summary While divorce proceedings between plaintiff-appellee Arnold Johnson (Husband) and Jacquelyn Johnson (Wife) were pending, Wife changed the primary beneficiary of her individual retirement account (IRA) from Husband to her adult children, defendants-appellants Dirk Snow and Duff Snow (collectively, Children). She also opened a new individual transfer on death (TOD) account and designated Children as the primary beneficiaries. Wife died before the divorce was granted, and the action abated. Thereafter, Husband filed the underlying declaratory judgment action to enforce the automatic temporary injunction entered in the divorce action. The district court concluded that the IRA and the funds used to open the TOD account were marital property and, therefore, Wife's acts violated the automatic temporary injunction, 43 O.S.2011 § 110(A)(1)(a), and were ineffective. The district court granted summary judgment to Husband and ordered that he be reinstated as the primary beneficiary of Wife's IRA and awarded the proceeds of the TOD account. Children appealed. The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that when the dissolution of marriage action abated, the district court was deprived of its jurisdiction to enforce the automatic temporary injunction. "It is undisputed that Children were designated as the primary beneficiaries at the time of Wife's death and, therefore, they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Read more Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Oklahoma Supreme Court? Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More › You already receive new opinion summaries from Oklahoma Supreme Court. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here . JOHNSON v. SNOW 2022 OK 86 Case Number: 119794 Decided: 11/01/2022 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL. ARNOLD H. JOHNSON, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. DIRK M. SNOW, an individual, and DUFF M. SNOW, an individual, Defendants/Appellants, and INVESTMENT CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC., a foreign corporation, and LPL FINANCIAL, LLC, a limited liability company and successor in interest to INVESTMENT CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC., Defendants. ON APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF GRADY COUNTY, STATE OF OKLAHOMA HONORABLE KORY KIRKLAND, DISTRICT JUDGE ¶0 While divorce proceedings between Plaintiff/Appellee Arnold H. Johnson (Husband) and Jacquelyn K. Johnson (Wife) were pending, Wife changed the primary beneficiary of her individual retirement account (IRA) from Husband to her adult children, Defendants/Appellants Dirk M. Snow and Duff M. Snow (collectively, Children). She also opened a new individual transfer on death (TOD) account and designated Children as the primary beneficiaries. Wife died before the divorce was granted, and the action abated. Thereafter, Husband filed the underlying declaratory judgment action to enforce the automatic temporary injunction entered in the divorce action. The district court concluded that the IRA and the funds used to open the TOD account were marital property and, therefore, Wife's acts violated the automatic temporary injunction, 43 O.S.2011 § 110(A)(1)(a), and were ineffective. The district court granted summary judgment to Husband and ordered that he be reinstated as the primary beneficiary of Wife's IRA and awarded the proceeds of the TOD account. Children appealed. We hold that when the dissolution of marriage action abated, the district court was deprived of its jurisdiction to enforce the automatic temporary injunction. It is undisputed that Children were designated as the primary beneficiaries at the time of Wife's death and, therefore, they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT REVERSED; CAUSE REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO GRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF APPELLANTS. Paul M. Kolker, Edmond, Oklahoma, and Christian M. Zeaman, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Appellants. George H. Brown, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Appellee. KANE, V.C.J.: ¶1 The threshold issue on appeal is whether the district court can enforce the automatic temporary injunction, 43 O.S. O.S.2011 § 110(A)(1), after a dissolution of marriage action abates due to the death of one spouse. We hold that it cannot. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 The material facts are not in dispute. Plaintiff/Appellee Arnold H. Johnson (Husband) and Jacquelyn K. Johnson (Wife) were married in 1996. In 2015, Wife designated Husband as the primary beneficiary of her traditional individual retirement account (IRA) with Investment Centers of America, Inc (ICA). On February 9, 2017, Husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. The automatic temporary injunction restrained the parties from "transferring, encumbering, concealing, or in any way disposing of, without the written consent of the other party or an order of the court, any marital property, except in the usual course of business . . . ." 43 O.S. § 110(A)(1)(a). An Agreed Temporary Order was entered on April 12, 2017. The Agreed Temporary Order provided that the automatic temporary injunction should remain in full force and effect. ¶3 On September 5, 2017, Wife opened an individual transfer on death account (TOD account) with ICA. Using a check from their joint checking account, Wife made an opening deposit of $32,000.00. Wife designated her adult children, Defendants/Appellants Dirk M. Snow and Duff M. Snow (collectively, Children), as the primary beneficiaries of the TOD account. ¶4 On September 8, 2017, Wife changed the beneficiary designation of her IRA by removing Husband and designating Children as the primary beneficiaries. ¶5 Wife died on November 2, 2017, and the divorce action abated. It is undisputed that Husband and Wife were still married when she died. No divorce had been granted by the court. At the time of Wife's death, Children were designated as the primary beneficiaries of both the IRA and the TOD account. ¶6 On July 24, 2018, Husband filed the underlying declaratory judgment action against Children and Defendants ICA and LPL Financial, LLC, as successor in interest to ICA.1 Husband sought declaratory and injunctive relief as to his rights in Wife's IRA. Husband and Children filed competing motions for summary judgment. Husband's position was that Wife's acts of changing the beneficiary of the IRA and opening the new TOD account with joint funds violated the automatic temporary injunction, 43 O.S. § 110(A)(1)(a), and the Agreed Temporary Order. Husband argued Wife's acts were void and that the trial court should "right a wrong and remedy an injustice based upon equitable considerations" by reinstating him as beneficiary of the IRA and awarding him the proceeds of the TOD account. Children argued they were entitled to summary judgment because the court had no authority to enforce the automatic temporary injunction or divide the marital estate after the divorce action abated. Children also argued that, even if the court had jurisdiction to enforce the automatic temporary injunction, changing the beneficiary of the IRA and opening the TOD account did not violate the automatic temporary injunction. ¶7 The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Husband, finding that the IRA and TOD account were marital property; that "there is no sole owner of said marital property, particularly in the midst of a divorce where there is a temporary injunction in place"; that Wife's actions of changing the beneficiary of the IRA and opening the TOD account were "ineffective"; that, as a result, Husband remained the primary beneficiary of the IRA; that Husband is the owner of all funds in the IRA and the TOD account; and that Husband is entitled to immediate possession of all the funds. Children appealed. This Court retained the appeal on its own motion. STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶8 Summary judgment is reviewed de novo. Rickard v. Coulimore, 2022 OK 9, ¶ 4, 505 P.3d 920, 922. Summary judgment is appropriate only when there is no genuine controversy as to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. In this case, the material facts are not in dispute.2 Therefore, only a question of law is involved. Appellate courts have plenary, independent and nondeferential authority to determine whether the trial court erred in its legal rulings. See Fanning v. Brown, 2004 OK 7, ¶ 8, 85 P.3d 841 , 845. ANALYSIS ¶9 Children submit eighteen issues on appeal in their Amended Petition in Error. However, this Court can resolve all allegations of error by addressing just four questions. ¶10 First, did Wife's death and the abatement of the dissolution of marriage action deprive the district court of jurisdiction to enforce the automatic temporary injunction? The threshold issue is not whether Wife violated the automatic temporary injunction; it is whether the trial court could enforce the automatic temporary injunction after the divorce action abated.3 ¶11 It has long been understood in Oklahoma that a cause of action for dissolution of marriage abates upon the death of either spouse before the entry of a final decree or final judgment. See, e.g., Pellow v. Pellow, 1985 OK 88, ¶ 23, 714 P.2d 593 , 597-98; Chastain v. Posey, 1983 OK 46, ¶ 6, 665 P.2d 1179 , 1181; Mabry v. Baird, 1950 OK 132, ¶ 13, 219 P.2d 234 , 239. This Court has said that "[a] cause of action for a divorce is purely personal, and it has been held that such a cause of action terminates on the death of either spouse before the entry of the final decree." Pellow, 1985 OK 88, ¶ 23, 714 P.2d at 597. Fairly recently, this Court clarified that the parties' divorce or dissolution of marriage is immediately effective at the time it is pronounced by the court even if property issues remain undecided and a journal entry has not been filed. See Alexander v. Alexander, 2015 OK 52, ¶¶ 2, 12, 357 P.3d 481, 482-84 (interpreting 12 O.S.2011 § 696.2(E)). It follows that a cause of action for dissolution of marriage abates if either spouse dies before the divorce is pronounced. ¶12 When one spouse dies before the divorce is granted, "the trial court is deprived of its jurisdiction." Pellow, 1985 OK 88, ¶ 23, 714 P.2d at 597. That is because death dissolved the marriage. Id.; Mabry, 1950 OK 132, ¶ 13, 219 P.2d at 239. There are two ways to dissolve a marriage: the death of one spouse or a decree of dissolution of marriage. Dissolution of marriage or divorce is a status determination. See Pellow, 1985 OK 88, ¶ 25, 714 P.2d at 598. Death, rather than a decree, determined the surviving spouse's unmarried status. Because there is no longer a marriage for the court to dissolve by decree, there is no longer a justiciable controversy. The court is no longer able to grant the relief requested. As a result, the district court is deprived of its jurisdiction.4 ¶13 If, on the other hand, one party dies after the divorce has been granted, the cause of action does not abate, and the court retains jurisdiction to divide marital property. See Alexander, 2015 OK 52, ¶¶ 7, 18, 357 P.3d at 483, 486; Swick v. Swick, 1993 OK 151, ¶ 7, 864 P.2d 819 , 821. The party's death has no legal effect on the status determination of divorce. See Swick, 1993 OK 151, ¶ 6, 864 P.2d at 821 (citing Pellow, 1985 OK 88, ¶¶ 23-25, 714 P.2d at 597-98). ¶14 Critical to our analysis is the undisputed material fact that Husband and Wife were married at the time of Wife's death. The trial court never granted a divorce.5 The parties agree--and we reach the same legal conclusion--that when Wife died the dissolution of marriage action abated as a matter of law. When the action abated, the court was deprived of its jurisdiction to proceed with the dissolution of marriage. ¶15 The parties disagree, however, as to whether the district court was also deprived of its jurisdiction to enforce the automatic temporary injunction.6 Other courts addressing this issue are split. Some states follow a bright-line approach that when a dissolution of marriage action abates due to the death of a party, the court also loses jurisdiction to enforce the temporary injunction or temporary order requiring the parties to preserve marital assets.7 Other states maintain that the court has the inherent equitable power to enforce the automatic injunction and temporary orders after the divorce action abates.8 ¶16 We find the more principled approach is to first inquire into the district court's jurisdiction.9 The Supreme Court of Alabama's analysis in Ex Parte Thomas, 54 So. 3d 356 (Ala. 2010), is persuasive. Thomas addressed the same question of law presented in this case--whether a temporary restraining order (TRO), which required parties to a divorce action to preserve their assets before division of the marital property, can be enforced after one spouse dies while the divorce action is pending. See id. at 360-61. The Alabama Supreme Court recognized the issue was purely a matter of civil procedure. The court clarified that the threshold issue on appeal was whether the court had subject matter jurisdiction over the underlying declaratory judgment action, not whether the deceased spouse violated the temporary restraining order by transferring marital property. See id. at 358-59. The Alabama Supreme Court held: [A]n interlocutory order that affects the property rights of the parties to a divorce action may not be enforced after the death of one of the parties due to the abatement of that action. Here, upon the husband's death and the subsequent abatement of the divorce action in the family court, the TRO became a nullity, which could no longer be enforced. Because the subject matter of this action is an alleged violation of a nullity (the TRO), the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over this action; therefore, the judgment of the trial court is void. Id. at 361-62 (quotations omitted) (citation omitted). ¶17 We agree with the Alabama Supreme Court that upon Wife's death and the abatement of the divorce action, the automatic temporary injunction, 43 O.S. § 110(A)(1), became a nullity that could no longer be enforced. In Oklahoma, the death of one spouse prior to the granting of a divorce "leaves the parties as though the action had never been brought." Mabry, 1950 OK 132, ¶ 13, 219 P.2d at 239. If an action for dissolution of marriage had never been brought, then it must certainly be as though the automatic temporary injunction had never been entered. It is, after all, the filing of a petition for dissolution of marriage that triggers the automatic temporary injunction. See 43 O.S. § 110(A)(1). Simply put, when the cause of action abates, the court's temporary orders and the automatic temporary injunction also terminate. See also Rader v. Rader, 2020 OK 106, ¶¶ 20, 27-28, 478 P.3d 438, 444, 446 (recognizing that the parties' joint dismissal terminated the divorce action and nullified the court's prior temporary orders as to child custody). Husband seeks to enforce a nullity. The trial court cannot grant the relief requested. We hold that the trial court was without jurisdiction10 to enforce the automatic temporary injunction after the dissolution of marriage action abated. ¶18 The trial court was without jurisdiction to declare that Wife's IRA and the funds used to open the TOD account were marital property. When Wife died and the action abated, the district court lost jurisdiction over the entire dissolution of marriage action, including property division.11 Whether the IRA and the funds used to open the TOD account were marital or separate property for purposes of dissolution of marriage became a non-issue. When Wife died, they were legally married. Husband's rights in Wife's estate are the same as if they never filed for divorce. Wife's property either became a part of her probate estate with title passing under the terms of a will or by intestate succession12 or it is non-probate property that passes to another person by operation of law or contract. The assets in the IRA and the TOD account are non-probate property that are to be distributed according to the terms of the respective contracts between Wife and ICA. It is undisputed that, at the time of Wife's death, Children were designated as the primary beneficiaries of the IRA and the TOD account. Therefore, Children are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ¶19 We expressly overrule Deleon v. Avery, 2007 OK CIV APP 91, 170 P.3d 1043 , insofar as the Court of Civil Appeals found the district court had jurisdiction to enforce the automatic temporary injunction after the divorce action abated. Deleon involved similar facts. While the dissolution of marriage action was pending, the husband changed the beneficiary of a life insurance policy from his wife to his sister. See id. ¶ 6, at 1044-45. The husband died, and the divorce action abated. Id. The wife subsequently filed a declaratory judgment action asserting that she had a right to the proceeds of the policy, because any change of beneficiary was in violation of the automatic temporary injunction and the court's temporary order. Id. ¶¶ 2, 6, at 1044-45. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of her petition. Id. ¶¶ 1, 15, at 1044, 1046. The Court of Civil Appeals did not, however, inquire into the district court's jurisdiction to enforce the automatic temporary injunction and temporary order. Rather, it reviewed the merits of the district court's decision.13 Based on today's opinion, the trial court in Deleon was without jurisdiction to enforce the automatic temporary injunction and temporary order, and the appellate court should not have reached the merits. ¶20 We hold that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enforce the automatic temporary injunction after the dissolution of marriage action abated. Because we hold the trial court does not have jurisdiction to enforce the automatic temporary injunction, we need not determine whether the IRA and the TOD account were marital property for purposes of property division in the dissolution of marriage action or whether Wife's acts of changing the beneficiary of the IRA and/or opening the new TOD account violated the automatic temporary injunction.14 We acknowledge that if Wife violated the automatic temporary injunction, our holding that the court is without jurisdiction to grant relief may seem inequitable--as though Wife's death wipes away any wrongdoing and there are no consequences. But, as one court so poignantly stated, "while it is regrettable that [deceased spouse] violated the automatic orders and seems to have reached beyond the grave to thwart [surviving spouse's] efforts to recover his share of her assets, this Court is unable to remedy the violation in this proceeding." A.V.B. v. D.B., 985 N.Y.S.2d 840, 845 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2014). ¶21 The second question to be answered by this Court is whether the trial court erred by entering a judgment as to the TOD account when Husband's petition does not reference the TOD account. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Husband as to both the IRA and the TOD account. Husband's Amended Petition for Declaratory Judgment seeks declaratory and injunctive relief as to Wife's IRA only. However, both parties, in their respective motions for summary judgment and responses argue they are entitled to the proceeds of the TOD account. We find it was proper for the trial court to consider the pleadings as having been amended to conform to the evidence and arguments presented on summary judgment. ¶22 Third, Children take issue with paragraphs 7 and 10 of the trial court's order: 7. Further, in her execution of the Traditional IRA Application on September 8, 2017, [Wife] indicated her marital status as divorced. That [Wife] was not divorced.. . .10. That in her execution of the paperwork necessary to open the said non-IRA TOD account, [Wife] indicated her marital status as divorced. That [Wife] was not divorced. Children argue the trial court erred by determining Wife's intent to commit fraud. They contend that evidence of Wife's intent to commit fraud has been disputed by their affidavit from Wife's financial advisor indicating her/his office prepared the paperwork. Our review of the record on appeal reveals Husband, at most, alludes to fraud, but he has not alleged fraud and the trial court did not grant summary judgment as to a claim for fraud. In any event, whether Wife had the intent to commit fraud is immaterial to the underlying declaratory judgment action and the jurisdictional question that resolves this appeal. ¶23 Finally, Children's allegations of error that the trial court did not give effect to the revocation upon divorce statute, 15 O.S.2011 § 178(A), are misplaced. The revocation upon divorce statute does not apply in this case, because it is undisputed that at the time of Wife's death 1) no divorce had been granted and 2) Husband was not the person designated as the primary beneficiary of the IRA or the TOD account. See id.15 As such, there was not a beneficiary designation to revoke. CONCLUSION ¶24 When the dissolution of marriage action abated, the district court was deprived of its jurisdiction to enforce the automatic temporary injunction. The material facts are not in dispute, and Children are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, the trial court's judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded with instructions for the trial court to grant summary judgment in favor of Defendants/Appellants Dirk M. Snow and Duff M. Snow. JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT REVERSED; CAUSE REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO GRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF APPELLANTS. CONCUR: DARBY, C.J., KANE, V.C.J., KAUGER, WINCHESTER, EDMONDSON, COMBS, GURICH, and KUEHN, JJ. CONCUR IN RESULT: ROWE, J. FOOT