Court Opinion

ID: 9541420
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:25:13.573311+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:51.382680
License: Public Domain

BARNES, Chief Justice,
concurring specially:
I agree with the majority opinion, but I concur for the specific reason that it appears that the legislature, by enacting 12 O.S.Supp.1979 § 1289(D), sought to remove the impetus that existed under § 1289(A) and (B) for an alimony recipient to remain unmarried, even while cohabiting, in order to avoid statutorily-imposed loss of support alimony. It is well established that public policy favors marriage and frowns upon statutes which act to restrain or discourage the marital relationship. It was essential for the legislature to enact § 1289(D) because prior to its enactment, cohabiting recipients found that it was financially detrimental for them to marry (and thus lose support alimony), while those who married were automatically (with certain exceptions) removed from recipient status. With the enactment of 12 O.S.Supp.1979 § 1289(D), the law is equally and equitably applied to both those recipients who marry and those who do not. The law no longer serves as an impetus to discourage or encourage marriage of support recipients, but relies solely, in both cases on true financial need of the parties.
I am authorized to state that OP ALA, J., joins me in this Concurring Specially opinion.