# Burrows v. Burrows

> Supreme Court of Oklahoma · November 29, 1994 · 886 P.2d 984

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9618155

## Case

- **Full name:** LaDonna Lea BURROWS, Now Guinn, Appellant, v. Edwin BURROWS, W.E. Burrows and Jewell Burrows, Husband and Wife, Appellees
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** November 29, 1994
- **Citations:** 886 P.2d 984; 52 A.L.R. 5th 843; 1994 OK 129; 1994 Okla. LEXIS 150; 1994 WL 666146
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Simms
- **Judges:** Kauger, Hodges, Lavender, Wilson, Summers, Watt, Opala, Simms, Hargrave
- **Cited by:** 31 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9618155

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9618155. Public record. Not legal advice.