Opinion ID: 1403137
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the record is insufficient for this court's final division of the marital estate

Text: ¶ 17 Divorce suits are of equitable cognizance. A trial court has discretionary power equitably to divide the marital estate. [14] The reviewing court will not disturb the division absent an abused discretion [15] or a finding that the nisi prius decision is clearly contrary to the weight of the evidence. [16] Oklahoma's statutory law mandates a fair and equitable division of spousal property. [17] The enhancement in value of one spouse's separate estate, when attributable to personal efforts of labor by either spouse, constitutes spousal property that is subject to division (frequently effected by an award of alimony in lieu of property). [18] The burden is upon the non-owning spouse to show that the enhancement sought to be declared as a marital share in the premises of the other is the result of either spouse's in-marriage endeavors. [19] ¶ 18 If the record is sufficient, this court will  in an appeal from an equity-suit decision  render that decree which the chancellor should have entered. [20] When reviewing an equity suit, an appellate court cannot exercise first-instance cognizance by making original findings of fact. Whenever necessary findings are absent, the cause must be remanded with directions that they be made. [21] ¶ 19 Because the trial court treated a substantial portion of the wife's separate property as part of the spousal estate, there was no opportunity for a meaningful inquiry into whether the value of her separate land, while in joint possession, came to be enhanced by the labor skills of either spouse or the use of spousal funds. The record is hence far from adequate for this court to enter on certiorari a property division award that the trial judge should have entered. [22] In light of today's pronouncement (that Churchill as well as Luglena constitute a separate asset of the wife and are not subject to division as a spousal asset), it is the husband's due that he be afforded an opportunity to present on remand proof of enhancement, if any he have, and to have the post-appellate division of spousal property re-examined with a view to a fair and equitable distribution of the marital estate.