Summary: This appeal regards the highly publicized divorce of Harold Hamm, ("Harold") Oklahoma multi-billionaire and his now ex-wife Sue Ann Hamm ("Sue Ann"). Both parties appealed the decision which awarded in excess of $974 million dollars to Sue Ann Hamm at the conclusion of their twenty-year marriage. Harold famously issued a hand-written check to his ex-wife for the amount in full. After first rejecting this check, Sue Ann cashed it, but did not dismiss her appeal. Harold moved to dismiss Sue Ann's appeal.
Legal Issues: The general rule of Oklahoma law is that if a party voluntarily accepts benefits accruing to her under a judgment, then that party cannot later question the validity of the judgment on appeal. Upon winning a less-than-desired outcome a litigant is presented with the choice of either accepting the lesser amount now, or seeking to appeal the judgment (and thus, possibly, end up with a better or an even worse outcome later). Oklahoma notes two exceptions to this general rule: 1) when receipt of the judgment is necessary for the support and maintenance of the receiving spouse and minor children; and, 2) when the party appealing may receive a better judgment after an appeal but has no risk of receiving a lesser judgment after the appeal.
The Court first noted that the exception for support and maintenance of a spouse and minor children exists to prevent a litigant from being forced to decide "between food and an appeal". This factual scenario was not present, and thus the exemption did not apply. The Court then noted that even Sue Ann admitted the remote possibility that she could receive a lesser amount upon appeal and ruled that there must be absolutely no risk of receiving a lesser award on appeal in order for that exception to apply.
In a 7-2 decision the Court ruled that because Sue Ann negotiated the check, she accepted the benefits accruing to her under the judgment dismissed her appeal.
Discussion: This was not a unanimous decision by the Court. Justice Combs, joined by Justice Winchester, wrote a special concurring opinion noting the problems with allowing Harold's appeal to continue while at the same time dismissing Sue Ann's appeal. Combs and Winchester note that Harold's voluntary compliance with the trial court judgment should also operate to halt Harold's appeal as well. Justice Watt also wrote a separate concurring opinion in which he noted: "...[F]rom a practical standpoint and because each party now possesses all that was awarded to them respectively by the trial court, it is my belief that appellee's counter-appeal will "GO AWAY" by whatever procedure appellee's counsel may take." (Emphasis in the original.)
Finally, Justice Gurich was joined by Justice Edmondson in a dissenting opinion which took the majority opinion to task for treating a divorce judgment like any other civil judgment. In the dissent's opinion, the fact that the property in question was previously marital property and thus the property of both individuals left Sue Ann with the choice of leaving the entirety of it in Harold's control or taking control of that portion which she was able. The dissent noted that several jurisdictions have specifically removed the 'acceptance of the benefit' exemption from the law in divorce proceedings. The dissent finally noted that the majority's ruling allowed Harold to accept the benefits of the judgment without forfeiting his right to appeal, which result they found to be inequitable.
No comments:
Post a Comment