Legal Opinion · Dissent

Nibarger v. Nibarger

Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma

Decided February 10, 2006No. 102,326Published

1DissentAdams, J.

¶ 1 According to the majority, no divorce decree awarding support alimony and which is based upon the parties’ agreement is subject to the provisions of 43 O.S.2001 § 134(D) allowing modification of support alimony, even though the parties’ agreement and the decree are silent with regard to modification. In doing so, I believe the majority applies Whitehead v. Whitehead, 1999 OK 91, 995 P.2d 1098, too broadly.

¶ 2 Whitehead involved an agreement which provided for support alimony which was not stated in a lump sum and for a defined period. That agreement was inconsistent with the “sum certain”…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Mayhue v. MayhueSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1985
  2. Dickason v. DickasonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1980
  3. Whitehead v. WhiteheadSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1999
  4. Utsinger v. UtsingerCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 1993

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API