holding that a father’s conveyance of homestead property to avoid past-due support alimony and child support was fraudulent under Oklahoma’s version of UFTA
How later courts described this case
- holding that a father’s conveyance of homestead property to avoid past-due support alimony and child support was fraudulent under Oklahoma’s version of UFTA
- allowing ex-wife to set aside fraudulent transfer of homestead in order to satisfy past due child support and alimony even though statute would appear on its face to preclude such a result
- “The purpose of the Act [the UFTA] is to allow a creditor the opportunity to invalidate the transfer of assets made by a debtor if the transfer has the effect of placing assets out of reach of present and future creditors.”
- “The homestead exemption is intended to be a shield, not a sword.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SIMMS, Justice,
dissenting:
I cannot join the majority in its declaration that alimony and child support indebtedness are public policy exceptions to the homestead exemption, as I agree with the Court of Appeals that any additional exceptions should be created by the legislature, not the courts.
As the majority recognizes, this mother’s claims for alimony and child support could have been protected by having the trial court place a lien on father’s homestead property to secure performance of his obligations under the divorce decree. See Sooner Federal Sav. & Loan Ass’n. v. Mobley, 645 P.2d 1000 (Okla.1982); Putz v. Putz, 572 P.2d 970 (Okla.1978); Whitman v. Whitman, 430 P.2d 802 (Okla.1967); Grattan v. Tillman, 323 P.2d 982 (Okla.1958); Bussey v. Bussey, 148 Okl. 10 , 296 P. 401 (1931); Haven v. Trammell, 79 Okl. 309 , 193 P. 631 (1920).
Although the mother failed to protect herself by obtaining a lien, the Court judicially amends the exceptions to the homestead exemption provided by 31 O.S.1991, § 5, and declares father’s conveyance fraudulent as a matter of public policy. While this situation presents obvious and substantial public policy considerations, they are concerns which should be addressed and resolved by the legislative process.
The Court is understandably sympathetic to the plight of this mother and child and their frustration with father’s conveyance of his only valuable asset. The opinion’s potential for harm to real property law, however, may far outweigh its beneficial effects to domestic relations litigants.
I am authorized to state that Justice HAR-GRAVE joins with me in the view expressed herein.