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

Heading: The Property Division Claim The Clifton Bar

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]