Court Opinion

ID: 9543927
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:50:38.583482+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:11:30.977102
License: Public Domain

HUNTER, Judge,
concurs in part and dissents in part:
I dissent from that part of the opinion concerning the valuation and award of an “equitable interest” in Diamond Venture. The evidence revealed that if the business ever made a profit, Appellant would share in that profit. It is erroneous to assign a value, for the purpose of equitable division of the marital estate, to a contingency which may never occur, in this case, the making of a profit. Certain contingent assets of a marriage, such as pension funds, may be divisible by a court. Carpenter v. Carpenter, 657 P.2d 646, 651 (Okl.1983). In those cases, however, the requirements of vesting of the contingency are known at the time of trial, or if it fails to vest, the result of the failure to vest is known at the time of trial. For future earnings, however, the rule is that they are not marital property. Mocnik v. Mocnik, 838 P.2d 500, 505 (Okl.1992). The court’s order, because it included nonmarital property as part of Appellant’s proportion, is no longer supportable as an equitable division. I would affirm in part, reverse in part and remand to the trial court with directions to modify the property division accordingly.