OSCN Found Document:Restoration of Maiden or Former Name - Alimony - Property Division
Title 43. Marriage

Oklahoma Statutes Citationized
  Title 43. Marriage
      Divorce and Alimony
        Section 121 - Restoration of Maiden or Former Name - Alimony - Property Division
Cite as: O.S. §, __ __


A. When a dissolution of marriage is granted, the decree shall restore:

1. To the wife her maiden or former name, if her name was changed as a result of the marriage and if she so desires;

2. To the husband his former name, if his name was changed as a result of the marriage and if he so desires.

B. The court shall enter its decree confirming in each spouse the property owned by him or her before marriage and the undisposed-of property acquired after marriage by him or her in his or her own right. Either spouse may be allowed such alimony out of real and personal property of the other as the court shall think reasonable, having due regard to the value of such property at the time of the dissolution of marriage. Alimony may be allowed from real or personal property, or both, or in the form of money judgment, payable either in gross or in installments, as the court may deem just and equitable. As to such property, whether real or personal, which has been acquired by the parties jointly during their marriage, whether the title thereto be in either or both of said parties, the court shall, subject to a valid antenuptial contract in writing, make such division between the parties as may appear just and reasonable, by a division of the property in kind, or by setting the same apart to one of the parties, and requiring the other thereof to be paid such sum as may be just and proper to effect a fair and just division thereof. The court may set apart a portion of the separate estate of a spouse to the other spouse for the support of the children of the marriage where custody resides with that spouse.

C. A servicemember’s portion of Special Monthly Compensation (SMC) awarded by or from the United States Department of Veterans Affairs for service-connected loss or loss of use of specific organs or extremities shall be separate property, not divisible as a marital asset nor as community property. For purposes of identifying SMC, it is the sole responsibility of the servicemember to prove with competent evidence what amount of his or her disability compensation is SMC.

D. A servicemember's portion of Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) shall be separate property, not divisible as a marital asset nor as community property, if a specific dollar amount of CRSC can be proved by the servicemember as compensation for combat-related loss of limb or loss of bodily function and the CRSC award was applied for and established prior to the date of the filing of the dissolution of marriage action.

E. Pursuant to the federal Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Act, 10 U.S.C., Section 1408, a court may treat disposable retired or retainer pay payable to a military member either as property solely of the member or as property of the member and the spouse of the member. If a state court determines that the disposable retired or retainer pay of a military member is the sole and separate property of the military member, the court shall submit clear and concise written findings of such determination to be included in the decree or final order. If a state court determines that the disposable retired or retainer pay of a military member is marital property, the court shall submit clear and concise written findings of such determination to be included in the decree or final order and shall award an amount consistent with the rank, pay grade, and time of service of the member at the date of the filing of the petition, unless the court finds a more equitable date due to the economic separation of the parties.

F. Unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, any division of an active duty military member's retirement or retainer pay shall use the following language:

"The former spouse is awarded a percentage of the member's disposable military retired pay, to be computed by multiplying fifty percent (50%) times a fraction, the numerator of which is ____x____ months of marriage during the member's creditable military service, divided by the member's total number of months of creditable military service."

G. In the case of a member's retiring from reserve duty, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, any division of a reservist's retirement or retainer pay shall use the following language:

"The former spouse is awarded a percentage of the member's disposable military retired pay, to be computed by multiplying fifty percent (50%) times a fraction, the numerator of which is __X____reserve retirement points earned during the period of the marriage, divided by the member's total number of reserve retirement points earned."

Historical Data


R.L. 1910, § 4969; Amended by Laws 1975, HB 1314,  c. 350, § 1, eff. October 1, 1975; Amended by Laws 1976, HB 1702, c. 154, § 1; Amended by Laws 1985, SB 162, c. 39, § 1, emerg. eff. April 19, 1985; Renumbered from 12 O.S. § 1278 by Laws 1989, SB 121, c. 333, § 1, eff. November 1, 1989; Amended by Laws 1992, HB 2046, c. 252, § 3, eff. September 1, 1992; Amended by Laws 2006, HB 2708, c. 311, § 5, emerg. eff. June 8, 2006 (superseded document available); Amended by Laws 2012, SB 1951, c. 261, § 2, emerg. eff. May 15, 2012 (superseded document available); Amended by Laws 2012, SB 1887, c. 334, § 1, eff. November 1, 2012 (superseded document available).

Citationizer© Summary of Documents Citing This Document
Cite Name Level
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Cases
  Cite Name Level
  1991 OK CIV APP 126, 832 P.2d 429, 63 OBJ 2162, Taylor v. Taylor Discussed
  1993 OK CIV APP 17, 847 P.2d 827, 64 OBJ 1098, Smith v. Smith Cited
  1993 OK CIV APP 41, 849 P.2d 1118, 64 OBJ 1198, Randol v. Randol Cited
  1993 OK CIV APP 173, 865 P.2d 1272, 65 OBJ 155, Strock v. Strock Discussed
  1994 OK CIV APP 159, 889 P.2d 1268, 66 OBJ 505, Sien v. Sien Cited
  2001 OK CIV APP 64, 24 P.3d 886, 72 OBJ 1870, DORN v. HERITAGE TRUST CO. Discussed
  2004 OK CIV APP 58, 94 P.3d 96, GRIFFIN v. GRIFFIN Discussed
  2006 OK CIV APP 5, 128 P.3d 1113, LEMONS v. LEMONS Cited
  2006 OK CIV APP 112, 144 P.3d 173, BARTLETT v. BARTLETT Discussed at Length
  2007 OK CIV APP 31, 158 P.3d 491, BEEN v. BEEN Cited
  2007 OK CIV APP 43, 162 P.3d 939, DUTY v. DUTY Cited
  2007 OK CIV APP 58, 164 P.3d 1128, HAYES v. HAYES Cited
  2007 OK CIV APP 61, 164 P.3d 1144, IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: WOODARD Cited
  2009 OK CIV APP 26, 209 P.3d 793, LAHMAN v. LAHMAN Cited
  2009 OK CIV APP 46, 211 P.3d 233, REDMOND v. CAUTHEN Cited
  2010 OK CIV APP 74, 239 P.3d 216, PARNELL v. PARNELL Cited
  2011 OK CIV APP 59, 253 P.3d 1004, MARZUOLA v. CLICK Cited
  2011 OK CIV APP 105, 264 P.3d 143, JOHNSON v. JOHNSON Cited
  1996 OK CIV APP 122, 928 P.2d 964, 67 OBJ 3649, Bloustine v. Fagin, Cited
  2013 OK CIV APP 96, 314 P.3d 264, GARRETT v. GORDON Discussed
  2013 OK CIV APP 107, 315 P.3d 410, JANITZ v. JANITZ Discussed at Length
  2014 OK CIV APP 32, 324 P.3d 1264, BEENE v. BEENE Cited
  2014 OK CIV APP 92, 340 P.3d 644, BALLINGER v. BALLINGER Discussed
  2014 OK CIV APP 98, 352 P.3d 1266, FINKENSTAEDT v. FINKENSTAEDT Cited
  2014 OK CIV APP 100, 352 P.3d 1250, STARCEVICH v. STARCEVICH Discussed
  2016 OK CIV APP 13, 367 P.3d 518, GRESS v. KUHN Discussed at Length
  2016 OK CIV APP 74, 386 P.3d 1049, JOHNSON v. JOHNSON Cited
  2017 OK CIV APP 63, 419 P.3d 312, IN RE MARRIAGE OF CRAWFORD Discussed
  2019 OK CIV APP 29, 442 P.3d 577, SMITH v. SMITH Cited
  2020 OK CIV APP 55, 477 P.3d 1159, MINERAL ACQUISITIONS v. HAMM Cited
  2022 OK CIV APP 25, 513 P.3d 569, DANCER v. DANCER Cited
  2022 OK CIV APP 27, 514 P.3d 485, BILLS v. BILLS Discussed
  2022 OK CIV APP 28, 515 P.3d 856, BIXLER v. FASSNACHT-BIXLER Discussed
  2023 OK CIV APP 21, 530 P.3d 872, IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF COTTON Cited
  2024 OK CIV APP 8, WILLIAMS v. WILLIAMS Cited
  2024 OK CIV APP 12, IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JONES Cited
  1998 OK CIV APP 54, 960 P.2d 849, 69 OBJ 1824, ASAL v. ASAL Cited
  1999 OK CIV APP 15, 976 P.2d 1071, 70 OBJ 1268, Hendrick v. Hendrick Discussed at Length
  2000 OK CIV APP 87, 11 P.3d 220, 71 OBJ 2098, ADAMS v. ADAMS Cited
Oklahoma Supreme Court Cases
  Cite Name Level
  1990 OK 50, 793 P.2d 1359, 61 OBJ 1554, United Oklahoma Bank v. Moss Cited
  1992 OK 99, 838 P.2d 500, 63 OBJ 2005, Mocnik v. Mocnik Discussed
  2001 OK 37, 26 P.3d 104, 72 OBJ 1190, STANDEFER v. STANDEFER Discussed
  2002 OK 12, 41 P.3d 966, 73 OBJ 565, YOUNGE v YOUNGE Discussed
  1995 OK 5, 890 P.2d 925, 66 OBJ 338, Thielenhaus v. Thielenhaus Discussed at Length
  1995 OK 22, 891 P.2d 1277, 66 OBJ 1102, Traczyk v. Traczyk Cited
  1995 OK 72, 898 P.2d 1271, 66 OBJ 2227, Bigbie v. Bigbie Cited
  1996 OK 84, 922 P.2d 615, 67 OBJ 2328, Gray v. Gray Discussed at Length
  2012 OK 97, 295 P.3d 1123, COLCLASURE v. COLCLASURE Discussed at Length
  2012 OK 114, 298 P.3d 533, SMITH v. VILLAREAL Discussed
  2016 OK 95, 382 P.3d 1020, CHILDERS v. CHILDERS Discussed at Length
  2016 OK 117, 385 P.3d 68, BAGGS v. BAGGS Discussed at Length
  2020 OK 20, 465 P.3d 1187, METCALF v. METCALF Discussed at Length
  1999 OK 91, 995 P.2d 1098, 70 OBJ 3444, Whitehead v. Whitehead Discussed
  2022 OK 86, 521 P.3d 1272, JOHNSON v. SNOW Cited
  2023 OK 12, 529 P.3d 905, OWENS v. OWENS Discussed at Length
  2023 OK 81, FITZPATRICK v. FITZPATRICK Discussed at Length
  1998 OK 66, 961 P.2d 831, 69 OBJ 2415, MATTHEWS v. MATTHEWS Cited
  1999 OK 83, 991 P.2d 536, 70 OBJ 3260, Larman v. Larman Cited
Citationizer: Table of Authority
Cite Name Level
Title 43. Marriage
  Cite Name Level
  43 O.S. 121, Restoration of Maiden or Former Name - Alimony - Property Division Cited