Court Opinion

ID: 9621210
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:53:23.296478+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:54.631352
License: Public Domain

*1216SIMMS, J.,
concurring in part, dissenting in part:
¶ 1 I must respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision insofar as it remands this matter to the trial court for further proceedings under 43 O.S.1991, § 134 D. I would affirm the trial court’s award of support alimony and denial of Orlan’s motion to modify the award based on its finding that § 134 C, under which Orlan brought his motion, was the only applicable statute and he did not prove his case. These statutory subsections, C and D of § 134, are, as the majority points out, separate and independent. I believe that if they are they are not kept so, confusion and perhaps mischief will result as this case illustrates. This motion to modify was brought under the explicit provisions of § 134 C and the parties and the trial court considered that to be the only applicable statute. In my opinion, the scope of that hearing did not change because Lacretia was forthcoming and revealed her whole financial status when asked.
I am authorized to state that Justice KAUGER joins with the views expressed herein.