Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Gillett v. McKinney

Court of Appeals of Oklahoma, Division II

April 4, 2019

SARAH JANE GILLETT and ANNE ELIZABETH RICHMOND, Petitioners/Appellants,
v.
DEBORAH B. MCKINNEY, Respondent/Appellee.

          Mandate Issued: 05/01/2019

          APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA HONORABLE MARTHA OAKES, TRIAL JUDGE

          James A. Kirk, Amber M. Brock, KIRK & CHANEY PLLC, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Petitioner/Appellant

          Charles O. Schem, HESTER SCHEM HESTER & DEASON, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Respondent/Appellee

          JOHN F. FISCHER, JUDGE.

         ¶1 Kenneth N. McKinney, [1] appeals the district court's order in this divorce action denying his request for credit for all of the 2014 and 2015 federal income tax credits and overpayments. Based on our review of the record, the district court's order in favor of Deborah B. McKinney is not against the clear weight of evidence and is affirmed.

         BACKGROUND

         ¶2 The parties were married in 1998. They separated on October 3, 2015, and the petition for divorce was filed on October 20, 2015. The parties resolved the majority of their issues through mediation. They did not resolve who was to receive credit for the excess taxes paid in conjunction with their 2014 income tax returns or the excess in estimated taxes paid for their 2015 income tax liability. The district court held a hearing to resolve those issues. The district court found that husband's deposit of his separate funds into the parties' joint accounts "took away the separate identity and character" of those funds. The court also found that any of husband's separate funds used to pay the parties' income taxes had been commingled with their marital funds. According to the district court, wife's use of one-half of those funds was "fair and equitable." Based on these findings, the district court denied husband's request to credit him with all of the tax credits and overpayments. Husband appeals the district court's disposition of the 2014 and 2015 tax issues.

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         ¶3 In an action for divorce, the division of property "is one of equitable cognizance and in reviewing a case of equitable cognizance, the judgment of the trial court will not be disturbed unless the trial court abused its discretion or unless the court's finding was clearly against the weight of the evidence." Hough v. Hough, 2004 OK 45, ¶ 12, 92 P.3d 695 (citing Merritt v. Merritt, 2003 OK 68, ¶ 7, 73 P.3d 878). "A trial court's valuation of a marital estate will not be disturbed unless it is against the clear weight of evidence, and our cases demonstrate considerable deference to a trial court's valuation of marital assets in a divorce." Childers v. Childers, 2016 OK 95, ¶ 12, 382 P.3d 1020.

         ANALYSIS

         ¶4 Husband raises two issues in this appeal. First, he argues that the district court erred in not awarding him $115, 994 in tax refunds and overpayments as his separate property. Second, he contends that the district court erred when it did not order wife to reimburse him for $9, 625 in additional taxes he had to pay because wife filed a separate, rather than a joint income tax return for 2015.

         I. The Separate Property Issue

         ¶5 The parties filed joint individual income tax returns for the 2014 tax year and received a partial refund for the taxes paid in conjunction with that return. In addition, during 2015 and prior to the filing of the petition for divorce, the parties made estimated tax payments for the 2015 tax year. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.