Opinion ID: 2549213
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 22

Heading: binding precedent supports the equitable division of costs.

Text: ¶ 6 In 1936, almost thirty years before the Legislature allowed the equitable division of costs in a divorce proceeding, this Court held in syllabus three of Gilcrease v. Gilcrease, 1936 OK 50, ¶ 0, 54 P.2d 1056: Notwithstanding the affirmance of the judgment of the trial court, this court may, in its discretion, tax the costs of appeal in a divorce proceeding against the prevailing party. In decrying the efficacy of the Gilcrease opinion, the majority ignores well-settled law on another issuea syllabus, authored by this Court, embodies the law. [6] The Court's language is not ipse dixit the bare assertion of an individual. [7] Rather, it is the statement of this Court and is more akin to being carved in stone. We regularly rely upon syllabi as what they areOklahoma law as expressed by this Court. [8] ¶ 7 The majority can only reach the result here by overruling precedent. If Gilcrease is to be overruled, the change in the law should be given prospective application. When a statute or rule of law appears obscure in its impact on the case at bar, our pronouncements are given prospective effect to protect those who would otherwise suffer. [9] ¶ 8 Research does not reveal any cause subsequent to Gilcrease in which this Court has equitably divided costs. Nevertheless, the Court of Civil Appeals evidently did not consider the practice so foreign to Oklahoma practice. In Bingham v. Bingham, 1981 OK CIV APP 26, 629 P.2d 1297, the Court of Civil Appeals taxed the costs of the appeal equally between the parties. [10]