Opinion ID: 1199185
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the wife's quest to reopen the divorce decree for redistribution of spousal assets and for additional support alimony

Text: In Clifton the court held that 12 O.S.Supp. 1987 § 1289(F) could not serve as a vehicle for reopening a divorce decree to divide military retirement benefits as spousal property, where by law those benefits were not divisible at the time of dissolution. [11] The court observed that if it were to conclude § 1289(F) controlled modification of property division awards, an irreconcilable conflict would arise between that section and subsection (A). [12] The latter proscribes modification of property division arrangements. In short, Clifton holds that § 1289(F)'s retroactivity provisions apply only to support alimony awards. [13] Its rationale is bottomed on language in subsection (F) [14] which refers the reader to subsection (E). [15] Subsection (E) authorizes retroactive modification of support obligations upon proof of changed circumstances that affect either the need for or the ability to provide support. [16] Property division awards, the court concluded, must stand inviolate except when the decree is subject to vacation in a manner authorized by statute. [17]
The wife now predicates her support alimony claim on our construction in Clifton. She seeks to enlarge her previous award by tendering for consideration the husband's military retirement pension rights, which had not been and could not be previously included for evaluation of her support alimony claim.