 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Davis v. Davis12/5/2003
Mandate Issued: 04/01/2004
After a trial on the merits, the trial court held the severance package Defendant/Appellee Jimmy Ray Davis (Husband) received upon being laid off by Seagate Technologies was not joint property subject to equitable division in the parties' divorce. Plaintiff/Appellant Leslie Ellen Davis (Wife) appeals. We affirm.
Husband's severance, called a "Special Separation Benefit" (SSB) is valued at $26,418.04 and is the second largest asset of the marital estate. Husband also had a Seagate 401(k) Retirement Plan worth over $33,000, which the trial court divided evenly between the parties. After the parties had separated and filed their petition for divorce but before the decree of divorce issued, Seagate informed Husband it was eliminating his position due to downsizing and offered Husband the SSB. In order to receive any proceeds under the SSB, Husband had to sign a waiver and release of any legal, equitable, or other claims he may have had against Seagate, specifically claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 and the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act). Seagate calculated the amount of Husband's SSB based on his twenty-two years of service with the company.
Because Seagate calculated the SSB based on Husband's twenty-two years of service, all of which took place during the marriage, Wife argues the SSB is marital property subject to equitable division. In addition, Wife claims the benefit is not of an income-replacing nature because Husband was permitted to, and did, draw unemployment compensation after his layoff, as permitted by the terms of the SSB agreement and waiver. Husband maintains the SSB is separate property not subject to equitable division because it is a non-vested benefit designed to replace the loss of those funds Husband would have earned had Seagate not terminated his employment. Husband further argues the funds he received were in consideration for his having waived any and all personal legal claims he may have asserted against Seagate as a result of his termination.
The trial court is vested with wide discretion in the division of marital estates, and the lower court's determination will not be disturbed on review unless it is contrary to law or the clear weight of the evidence, or an abuse of discretion is found. Carpenter v. Carpenter, 1983 OK 2, , 657 P.2d 646, 651; see also Randol v. Randol, 1993 OK CIV APP 41, , 849 P.2d 1118, 1121.
In analyzing the nature of Husband's SSB, we follow the "replacement" approach, which holds if the proceeds in question replace wages earned during the marriage, the proceeds were marital property subject to equitable division. Christmas v. Christmas, 1990 OK 16, , 10, 787 P.2d 1267, 1268. Under this approach, we classify benefits not based on what they are called, but according to the nature of the assets they replace. Id. Indeed, replacement benefits may be in the form of disability plans, retirement pensions, workers' compensation awards, or severance pay. Id., , 787 P.2d at 1268.
For example, in regard to workers' compensation benefits, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has held:
workers' compensation disability award is marital property only to the extent that it recompenses for the couple's loss of income during the marriage. To the extent that it compensates for loss of post-divorce earnings by the injured party, it is separate property. Because a former spouse has no inherent right to the salary earned by his/her former marriage partner after the marriage is terminated, there is no right to a disability award which is intended to replace future wages.
Crocker v. Crocker ,
Page 1 2 3 Oklahoma Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|