Court Opinion

ID: 9562395
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:27:50.164736+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:19.565272
License: Public Domain

SUMMERS, Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
The Court of Appeals did two things in this case: (1) it affirmed the District Court in ruling for the wife on the husband’s future insurance commissions, and (2) it reversed the lower court in ruling for the husband on wife’s effort to burden the childrens’ life insurance policies. Only the husband sought certiorari, and, of course, he only complained of the appellate court’s treatment of the future commissions. The wife sought nothing by way of certiorari.
Today our Court gives the husband relief on the future commissions, and properly so. I concur. But we go beyond the relief sought on certiorari when we reject the Court of Appeals’ ruling and affirm the trial courts’ decision in favor of the wife on the childrens’ policies. The wife gets a judicial windfall.
The Court of Appeals’ decision on the chil-drens’ policies was patently correct, in spite of wife’s decision to forego citation of sup*1275porting authority.1 The childrens’ policies were clearly not within the marital estate.
I would vacate that part of the Court of Appeals’ opinion on future commissions and replace it with our own, as does the majority, but I would leave intact as law of the case the part that correctly resolves the issue of the childrens’ insurance policies. See Mosier v. Oklahoma Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association, 890 P.2d 878, 881 (Okla.1994), where we vacated in part the opinion of the Court of Appeals and observed that the non-vaeated portions remained as the settled law of the case.
I am authorized to state that Justice Hodges joins in these views.

. She who asserts a point of law on appeal without citation of authority does so at great risk that her assertion will not be heard. McDonald v. Humphries, 810 P.2d 1262, 1264 n. 4 (Okla.1990).