Court Opinion

ID: 9593843
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:25:18.170148+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:03:02.349471
License: Public Domain

ALMA WILSON, Justice,
dissenting:
The sole issue here concerns a division of property in a divorce action. I disagree with the majority’s characterization of a wholly separate civil action as being appropriate or pertinent to the disposition of this divorce action.
The fact is the homestead property in controversy was legally unencumbered at the time of the divorce. It was not subject *1000to any mortgage liability or other security interest and neither party asserted the homestead as his/her separate property. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in treating the homestead as marital property subject to equitable division. Moreover, no evidence was presented— whether in the nature of promissory notes, or otherwise — to establish a separate spousal money debt which might be subject to division. Yet, the majority deems alleged responsibility on the untendered notes “spousal debt”, and dictates distribution of “spousal debt” in a separate civil action.
Whether or not the monies in question may be properly characterized as a gift to the marital estate or spousal debt should be litigated within the confines of the division of property phase of the divorce action —not in a separate civil action. Our statutes provide for the joinder of issues which generate from the same occurrence or transaction and/or consolidation when actions involve a common question of law or fact. See, 12 O.S.1987 Supp., § 2018. It is the trial judge in the divorce action who has before him the facts and circumstances surrounding the entire spousal relationship, and it is he who is in the better position to adjust the equities with reference to marital assets and liabilities. Therefore, joinder of the issues in instances of this nature provides a more thorough assessment of the equities and is conducive to orderly expedition of the matter and judicial economy.
I would remand this case to the trial court for joinder and to hear the evidence, and based thereon, to determine whether the monies in question represent a gift to the marital estate or constitute a liability upon said marital estate. In either event the divorce judge should be directed to make a final equitable distribution of marital property.
I have been authorized to state that HODGES, J. joins in this dissent.