Agent v. Agent

7 Citing cases

  1. Araya v. Keleta

    65 A.3d 40 (D.C. 2013)   Cited 15 times
    Recognizing that a trial court may treat separate property as "transformed" when " the two items of property came to be used as one property and one or both properties would be destroyed or damaged or left with a gaping deficiency or defect if the properties were separated" (footnotes omitted)

    Id. at 912. In Agent v. Agent, 604 P.2d 862 (Okla.Ct.App.1979), the court held that where one spouse used money he had received as an inheritance to build a swimming pool on marital property for the benefit of the family, the inherited property, which had โ€œundisputedly become part of the purchase price of the residence of the parties,โ€ was โ€œso blended with the [marital] property as to lose its character as โ€˜separateโ€™ property.โ€ Id. at 866.

  2. Mortensen v. Mortensen

    760 P.2d 304 (Utah 1988)   Cited 45 times
    Concluding that property is considered commingled when it โ€œcompletely loses its identity and is not traceableโ€

    Hussey, 312 S.E.2d at 270. The rule that property acquired by gift or inheritance by one spouse should be awarded to that spouse on divorce unless the other spouse has, by his or her efforts with regard to the property, acquired an equity in it does not apply when the property thus acquired is consumed, such as when a gift or an inheritance of money is used for family purposes, In re Marriage of Metcalf, 183 Mont. 266, 598 P.2d 1140 (1979); when the property completely loses its identity and is not traceable because it is commingled with other property (sometimes called transmuted), Wierman v. Wierman, supra; Klingberg v. Klingberg, supra; Agent v. Agent, 604 P.2d 862 (Okla.Ct.App. 1979); or when the acquiring spouse places title in their joint names in such a manner as to evidence an intent to make it marital property. Hussey v. Hussey, supra.

  3. Carpenter v. Carpenter

    1983 OK 2 (Okla. 1983)   Cited 67 times
    In Carpenter v. Carpenter, 657 P.2d 646 (Okla. 1983) we approved the award of jointly acquired marital property based in part on a valuation of a closely held professional corporation providing medical services.

    WAS THE SUPPORT ALIMONY AWARD TO DEFENDANT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION OR SO CONTRARY TO THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AS WOULD REQUIRE REVERSAL ON APPEAL? Various considerations taken into account by this Court in reviewing alimony awards, both as to whether alimony should be awarded and the amount and time of payment thereof, are set forth in Agent v. Agent, Okla.App., 604 P.2d 862 (1980), and need not be reiterated here. Suffice it to say that a review of the record in this case together with a consideration of all of the factors governing the award of support alimony leads us to the conclusion that the alimony award to the defendant by the trial court was not such an abuse of discretion or so against the weight of the evidence as would justify a reversal on appeal within Roberts v. Roberts, supra, and Peters v. Peters, supra. III.

  4. Forristall v. Forristall

    831 P.2d 1017 (Okla. Civ. App. 1992)   Cited 7 times

    Although property acquired during coverture is generally marital property, it is possible for one spouse to acquire separate property during marriage. See, e.g. Harden v. Harden, 182 Okla. 364, 77 P.2d 721 (1938); Agent v. Agent, 604 P.2d 862 (Okla. App. 1979). On this record, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the sums earned by Husband subsequent to the separation of the parties. Weaver v. Weaver, 545 P.2d 1305 (Okla. App. 1975).

  5. Tate v. Tate

    794 P.2d 1216 (Okla. Civ. App. 1990)

    As we find Husband's appeal without merit, we further grant Wife's prayer for appeal-related costs and attorney's fees. See, e.g., Agent v. Agent, 604 P.2d 862 (Okla.App. 1979); Tigert v. Tigert, 595 P.2d 815 (Okla.App. 1979); Selby v. Selby, 569 P.2d 539 (Okla.App. 1979); Durland v. Durland, 552 P.2d 1148 (Okla. 1976); Dowdell v. Dowdell, 463 P.2d 948 (Okla.

  6. Wood v. Wood

    793 P.2d 1372 (Okla. Civ. App. 1990)   Cited 16 times

    Jones v. Jones, 612 P.2d 266 (Okla. 1980); Agent v. Agent, 604 P.2d 862 (Okla.App. 1979). Pursuant to 20 O.S.Supp. 1982 ยง 15.

  7. Meason v. Meason

    717 P.2d 1165 (Okla. Civ. App. 1986)

    Inherited property used for the benefit of the family can lose its character as separate property. Agent v. Agent, 604 P.2d 862 (Okla.Ct. of App. 1979). The trial court is instructed to determine which bank accounts and which pieces of furniture have lost their character as separate property consistent with that case.