Date: 04-07-2014

Case Style: In re the Marriage of MEN and JRN

Case Number: FD-2012-***3

Judge: Rodney Sparkman

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Joel Wohlgemuth and Adrienne Barnett

Defendant's Attorney: Joe Farris and Curt Roberts

Description: Tulsa County, OK - In re the Marriage of MEN and JRN

PETITION FOR DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE
Petitioner MEN, for her Petition for Dissolution of Marriage against JRN,
states as follows:
1. Petitioner is now, and has been for more than six (6) months preceding the filing of the Petition herein, an actual resident in good faith of the State of Oklahoma and a resident of Tulsa County for more than thirty (30) days at the time of filing of this Petition.
2. Respondent is a resident of Tulsa County.
3. Petitioner and Respondent were married on July 19, 1986 in Minden, Nebraska.
4. Petitioner seeks a Decree of Dissolution of Marriage. As grounds for Dissolution of Marriage, Petitioner alleges that a state of irreconcilable incompatibility exists, which has completely destroyed the legitimate aims of the marriage of the parties and rendered its continuation impossible, by reason of which Petitioner is entitled to a Decree of Dissolution of Marriage from Respondent.
5. Of the marriage between the parties hereto, there are two (2) minor children, one of whom is eleven (11) years of age and the other of whom is fourteen (14) years of age. Petitioner respectfully submits that she is the fit and proper person to have sole custody of the parties’ minor children, and that Respondent, although not a fit and proper person to have custody of the children, may be entitled to visitation, subject to certain conditions. Petitioner further should receive child support in accordance with Oklahoma law. Petitioner is not currently pregnant.
6. Petitioner submits that this Court has jurisdiction to make a child custody determination pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, 43 OkIa. Stat. § 551-101 et seq., and provides the following infornation to the Court in accordance with 43 0/cia. Stat. § 551-209:
(a) The children are presently residing with Petitioner at the former marital home located at ***, Tulsa, OK 74***.
(b) For the past five (5) years, the children have resided with the parties at the marital home located at ***, Tulsa, OK 74***.
(c) Petitioner has not participated, as a party or a witness or in any other capacity, in any other proceeding concerning custody or visitation with the children.
(d) Petitioner bows of no proceeding which could affect the current proceedings.
(e) Petitioner does not know the names of any person not a party to the proceeding who has physical custody of the children or claims rights of legal or physical custody or visitation, and Petitioner submits that she believes there are no such persons.
7. Petitioner, a stay-at-home mother, is entitled to reasonable support alimony. She also reserves the right to request an Order of this Court requiring that Respondent pay for her attorneys’ fees.
8. During the marriage of the parties hereto, they have acquired certain debts, liabilities, and obligations and this Court should make a fair and equitable division and distribution thereof to the extent that debt is marital debt. Likewise, during the marriage of the parties hereto, they have acquired certain real and personal property, and this Court should make a fair and equitable division and distribution of all such marital property.
9. Petitioner is not, at this time, requesting a temporary order from the Court regarding the pasties’ respective uses of personal property or of marital property, nor regarding custody and/or visitation related to the minor children, but reserves the right to do so if the need arises.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court grant and award to Petitioner a Decree of Dissolution of Marriage from Respondent, a fair and equitable division and distribution of the property and indebtedness of the marriage, award to Petitioner of sole custody of the minor children, and such other relief to which Petitioner may be entitled and which this Court deems equitable.

RESPONDENT’S APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY ORDER
The Respondent, JRN, requests the court set this matter for temporary order hearing at the earliest possible date. In support of his application, the Respondent would show the court as follows:
1. This case was filed on January 3,2012.
2. On January 24, 2012 the parties attended a Parenting Plan Conference before
Judge Barcus at which time they attempted to reach an agreement as to temporary
issues; however, no agreement has been reached as of this date.
3, A temporary order is needed in this case for the following reasons;
a. To establish temporary support for the Petitioner and the minor childraof
the parties;
b. To set a custodial/visitation plan for the minor children;
c. Such other and further relief as may be appropriate.
WHEREFORE, Respondent prays the court set this matter for immediate hearing and, at that time, the court should enter an appropriate order for temporary support, custodial/visitation and such other and further relief as maybe just and proper.

APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY ORDER
Petitioner ***, respectfully submits this Application for Temporary Order pursuant to 43 0/cia. Stat. § 110. In support hereof, Petitioner states:
I. Petitioner is hereby seeking a Temporary Order concerning the custody and visitation arrangements of the parties’ minor children, who are eleven (11) and fourteen (14) years old, and providing her with temporary alimony and child support pending the entry of a Final Decree in this matter.
Temporary Custody and Visitation Requests
2. Petitioner requests that the Court enter an Order awarding the parties joint custody of their children on an interim basis, or if the Court determines this is unworkable or if Respondent is unwilling to be a joint custodian, Petitioner requests that the Court provide her sole custody of the parties’ minor children, as she is a fit and proper person to exercise custody. Petitioner respectfully informs the Court that Respondent works in Houston, Texas, usually only returning to Tulsa on weekends. The minor children’s home and school is in Tulsa, and it would be impracticable to
award sole custody to Respondent given his out-of-state living and travel schedule. Therefore, if sole custody is to be awarded on an interim basis, it should be awarded to Petitioner.
3. Petitioner requests that the Court enter a visitation schedule that is attentive to the following factors:
(a) Stability for the children: But for a two-year period approximately one decade ago, Respondent has traveled frequently for work. Since the fall of2007, Respondent has resided in Houston for work four-to-five nights per week, returning to Tulsa two-to-three nights per week over a weekend. Thus, the children, for the past several years, are used to spending at least four schooldays (or, in the summer, week days) per week in the sole care of their mother, the Petitioner. Additionally, the parties’ eldest child has expressed a preference that she be able to spend overnights when she is in school at the former marital home, which has been occupied by Petitioner and which the parties agree should be awarded to Petitioner on a temporary basis. Petitioner is the sole parent who has, for many years, transported the children to various activities, sports, and tutors. Respondent does take the children to school when he is in town. On the one afternoon after school that Respondent has spent with the children since filing, Respondent failed to take the parties’ youngest son to a lesson, and failed to ensure that his homework was finished. Petitioner respectifilly submits that, at least through the end ofthis school semester, the children’s routines with regard to their activities and sports should be respected, and that she should continue to be the party who is responsible for the care and transport of the children during the school week, but for limited and outlined exceptions.
(b) Some flexibility for Respondent’s travel and work schedule: Respondent’s travel schedule changes from week to week, since he works in Houston but is also required to travel to other states for business. Petitioner understands this, as do the children. Petitioner, however, believes that it is in everyone’s best interests (including the interests of the parties) to lessen the need for ongoing discussions about visitation and to have a schedule which requires some advance plaiming, with the understanding that limited exchanges of visitation may need to occur.
(c) Shared parenting that takes into account the parties’ historical parenting roles:
In a traditional setting, where shared parenting would be appropriate, both parties tend to have equal reductions in the time they spend with their children and with the time their children spend with them. Accordingly, the parties’ visitation schedule should take into consideration the fact that the children are used to theft mother, the Petitioner, being a parent who is generally around them 100% of the time, whereas they are already used to their father being absent during the week and being in Tulsa with them approximately 33% to 40% of the time. This has been the usual practice for at least four (4) years. It would not be equitable, nor would it be in the children’s best interest, to reduce Petitioner’s time with the children to a more significant degree than Respondent. Moreover, it would not be equitable for Petitioner not to have meaningful non-school day time with the children. Most schooldays, until 7pm, Petitioner spends time with the children transporting them to activities. After 7pm, Petitioner rushes to feed the children, ensure homework is complete, and have them in bed at a reasonable hour. The weekend days are the only time that Petitioner is able to spend non-structured time with the children, and this time should not be eliminated in favor of Respondent’s visitation.
(d) Visitation Restrictions that Account for Children’s Safety: Respondent has on one known occasion in the past (May, 2011) endangered the children by drinking and driving. Respondent has also, over the past few years, exhibited verbally abusive behavior when he has been drinking, usually directed toward Petitioner but on isolated occasions toward the children. Many of the excessive drinking incidents have happened while Respondent is out of town. Petitioner, at this time, does not have reason to believe that Respondent’s alcohol consumption is putting the children at risk of irreparable harm. However, she believes it is in their best interest to restrict Respondent from traveling out-of-state alone with the children. If an incident were to occur out-of-state or on an overnight trip, or were he to drink and drive, there would be no support system in place to be immediately available for the children. Petitioner is not requesting that these restrictions remain in place permanently; only for a six (6) month period of time. Petitioner believes that Respondent should demonstrate that his past problems with alcohol will not cause problems with his parenting as a newly separated parent before he travel with the children alone. Respondent has only traveled alone with the parties’ children on one occasion each in the past year, so this restriction is not a hardship on Respondent nor a change to the children’s routine.
4. The Petitioner proposes one of the following schedules for visitation, which provide the parties with contact that is routine, involves a mix of weekend and school time (with limited and Thursday only contact for Respondent to allow the children to have a more firm schedule in this regard), and which involves a proportional decrease in the amount of time the children are used to spending with each parent:’
(a) Two weekends per four week period, *** will have visitation Thursday after school until Sunday at 10:30 a.m. One weekend per month, *** will have visitation Thursday after school until Saturday at 10:30 a.m.
(b) *** will have visitation every Thursday after school until Friday morning, at school. Two of every four weeks, *** will have visitation from Friday after school until Sunday at 10:30.
(c) Any visitation schedule should contain a reciprocal right-of-first-refusal if a party is away from the children for more than two (2) hours and the other party is in town.
5. To allow Respondent flexibility with regard to his work schedule, Petitioner requests that the Court require Respondent to provide a schedule for four weeks preceding each four-week period covered by the visitation schedule. In other words, Respondent, by March 3, would provide Petitioner the schedule for April 1-28.
6. Petitioner also requests the appointment of a parenting coordinator to facilitate the visitation schedule and to assist in negotiating equitable accommodations that may be necessary for unexpected modifications.
Temporary Support and Alimony
7. Petitioner respectfully submits that she may be unaware of all sources of Respondent’s income and all sources of funds. However, based upon his current salary and the information contained in prior years’ tax returns, and in accordance with the provisions of 43 Ok/a. Stat. § 118 ci. seq., Petitioner respectfully requests that the Court temporarily award her a monthly payment of child support and alimony equal to her historic monthly expenses of $15,383.41 per month.2 Petitioner additionally believes that it would be appropriate to award her a lump sum of $30,000.00 per six months to utilize as an emergency fund and to pay for expenses that are not routine monthly expenses as they come due, including her attorneys’ fees. Petitioner is not currently
employed, nor has she been since the birth of the parties’ first child.
8. Petitioner also requests exclusive possession of the marital residence on a temporary basis.
9. Petitioner does not know of any marital debts, but to the extent there are any, she asks that the Court order Respondent to be responsible for payment of marital debts.
10. Petitioner requests that the provisions of the Automatic Temporary Injunction remain in hill force and effect.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Court enter a Temporary Order pursuant to this Application, and for such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.



11-10-2014 CTFREE - 91929135 Nov 10 2014 4:50:48:047PM - $ 0.00
CLARK, STEPHEN R: PETITIONER REPRESENTED BY ADRIENNE BARNETT, PRESENT BY PHONE. RESPONDENT REPRESENTED BY JOSEPH FARRIS, PRESENT. AFTER A HEARING IN THE PRESENCE OF THE COURT, THE COURT FINDS THAT THE RECORD REQUESTED SHOULD BE SEALED AND THAT THERE IS A COMPELLING PRIVACY INTEREST WHICH OUT WEIGHTS THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE RECORD. THE COURT FINDS THAT SEALING OF THE REQUESTED RECORDS WILL BE THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE MEANS FOR ACHIEVING CONFIDENTIALITY. THE OCURT HAS PROVIDED COUNSEL WITH SPECIFIC FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSSIONS OF LAW WHICH WILL BE IN CORPORATED IN AN ORDER TO BE PREPARED BY ADRIENNE BARNETT FOR THE COURT'S SIGNATURE AND FILING IN THIS CASE. ORDER AUTHORIZING FILING OF CERTAIN CONFIDENTIAL FINANCIAL DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL ENTERED AND SIGNED.

Outcome: DECREE OF DIVORCE
NOW on this 7th day of April, 2014, the above-captioned matter comes
on for hearing, before the undersigned Judge of the District Court. The Petitioner, MEN, appears in person and by her counsel of record, Adrienne L. Barnett. Respondent, JRN, appears not, having previously consented to the entry of this Decree as evidenced by his signature and that of his attorney This Decree and the related Confidential Property Division were the result of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law issued after a trial on December 17, 18, and 19, 2013 presided over by retired district court Judge Deborah C. Shalicross puruant to an Agreed Order of Referral to Referee for Trial filed herein on October 29, 2013. The Court, having examined the files and records in the case, having heard the oral testimony of one witness sworn, FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
I.
Except with respect to this Court’s jurisdiction over the parties, the subject matter of this action, the venue of this action, and other certain stipulated matters as indicated herein, this is a Decree of Divorce, which arose as a result of a trial before referee pursuant to 12 O.S. § 611 et seq. and the Agreed Order of Referral to Referee for Trial, filed on October 29, 2013. The
parties have agreed to the form of this journal entry and the related Confidential Property Division, which is being filed under seal, as evidenced by their signatures showing their agreement that these documents are consistent with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law issued by the Referee, and the parties ask that the same be made Orders and Judgments of this Court. By agreement of the parties, the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law shall be filed of record with this Court only under seal and only in the event that either party timely appeals.
II.
That the Petitioner has been a resident of Tulsa County for more than thirty (30) days and a resident of the State of Oklahoma for more than six (6) months next preceding the filing of her petition herein.
III.
That the parties herein were legally married on July 19, 1986 in Minden, Nebraska, and have been and are at the present time husband and wife; that to said marriage two children have been born, GN, aged thirteen (13) and EN, aged sixteen (16). Petitioner is not pregnant at this time.
Iv.
That there has arisen between the parties a state of complete and irreconcilable incompatibility rendering the continuation of the marriage impossible. Therefore, the Court finds that both parties herein are entitled to, and are hereby granted, an absolute decree of divorce from each other on the grounds of incompatibility.
V.
Neither party has filed for relief under the laws of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the last six (6) years and the Department of Human Services has filed a notice of Disclaimer of Interest on January 19, 2012.
VI.
Through trial before a referee, the mutual claims of the parties concerning the division of both real and personal property of which either or both are seized or possessed have been decided. The decision resulting therefrom is set forth in a Confidential Property Division document, which the Court has reviewed. The Court finds that the same is fair and equitable and should be approved by the Court. This Confidential Property Division is incorporated as to all matters therein set forth as fully as if hereinafter set out at length and is hereby made the order of this Court.
VIII.
The marital residence located at ***, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74***, is ordered sold. Wife is awarded temporary possession of the residence. The parties have agreed upon a listing agent and listing price. Wife is authorized to enter into a listing agreement. Wife shall obtain a list of the minimum maintenance/repairs that are required to present the residence for sale in consultation with the listing broker. Wife is awarded $25,000.00 from the parties’ Capital Advisors investment account in cash and authorized to have the repairs performed. Both parties shall be provided with a copy of the recommended maintenance/repairs by the listing broker. She shall maintain an accounting for all funds expended to prepare the house for sale. When the house is sold, or at another time mutually agreed upon by the parties or ordered by the Court or Referee, Husband and Wife shall receive ½ of the money remaining from the $25,000.00 that was not used to maintain/repair the residence, including the lot, sprinkler system, and other fixtures. Out of her support Wife shall continue to maintain the yard, housecleaning and other ordinary and necessary routine maintenance/upkeep items inasmuch as her alimony was based, at least in part, on her expected incurring these expenses.

When a buyer submits an offer or contract, if the parties cannot agree on the terms of sale, the Court and/or Referee maintains jurisdiction to decide the issue. A copy of any offer or contract shall be provided to both parties. The Court/Referee reserves jurisdiction over all issues related to the house. Should a dispute arise with respect to the propriety of the repairs and/or the terms of any proposed contract to sell the house, the parties may contact the Referee for resolution of such disputes, if any but, in any event, if the house does not sell by October 31, 2014, the Court/Referee will, after hearing evidence and argument, make a final Order regarding the house. The proceeds of the sale of the house are to be divided equally. (The Court and/or Referee will review the sale of the residence issue on October 31, 2014 at 9:30 A.M if necessary.)

VIII.

Respondent is hereby awarded the residence located at ***, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74***, the legal description of which is as follows:
LOTS ***, Block **, Terwilleger Heights, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

IX.

Petitioner is awarded her automobile, a 2010 Lexus, VIN JTJJM7FX2A5005952. Respondent is awarded his automobiles, a 2011 Lexus, VIN JTJHY7AX6B4O5587O, and a 2003 Lexus, VIN JTJBT2OX93001 1668.

X.

Petitioner is awarded the Southern Hills Country Club membership. Respondent is awarded the Austin Golf Club membership and the Patriot Club membership.

XI.

Petitioner is awarded support alimony in the total sum of $528,000.00, payable as
follows: Beginning on February 10, 2014 Respondent shall pay $10,000.00 for twenty-four (24)
months; $7,000.00 for twenty-four (24) months; and $5,000.00 for twenty-four (24) months.

Such payments shall cease upon the death or remarriage of Wife, as required by 43 Ok/a. Stat. §
134 and are otherwise subject to modification pursuant to 43 0.S. Okia. Stat. § 134

XII.

The parties have agreed upon a Joint Custody Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit

A. The parties have agreed upon a Parenting Coordinator Order, attached hereto
as Exhibit B. A Child Support Calculation is attached hereto as Exhibit C. The parties’ income exceeds the maximum amount under the Child Support. The Court fmds that an upward deviation is appropriate. Respondent shall pay child support to Petitioner in the amount of $5,750.00 per month beginning on February 10, 2014. Respondent shall pay the children’s Holland Hall school tuition. Respondent shall maintain health insurance for the children.

XIII.

The parties shall, to the extent practicable and as allowed by applicable law, file joint income-tax returns (federal and state) for the calendar year 2013 if Husband elects to do so. The court/Referee reserves jurisdiction to allocate any taxes due for calendar year 2013 among the parties. Upon preparation of those returns, they shall be shared with the Referee and the Referee will schedule a hearing to deal with the allocation of taxes accordingly.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that the parties herein be and hereby are, granted an absolute Decree of Divorce from each other on the grounds of incompatibility and the bonds of matrimony heretofore existing between said parties are hereby dissolved, set aside and held for naught, and that both parties are released therefrom. The parties are further notified by this Court that remarriage within six (6) months of this date, except to each other, is unlawful within the state of Oklahoma.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the findings and orders in paragraphs I. through XIII., inclusive, with respect to all matters therein set forth be and the same are ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as fully as if hereinafter set out at length and are hereby made the ORDERS of this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Confidential Property Division is fair and equitable and hereby approved by this Court, incorporated herein as to all matters therein set forth as fully as if hereinafter set out at length.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGE AND DECREED that the parties shall immediately execute and deliver to one another any assignments, bills of sale, deeds, and conveyances that may be necessary to carry out the terms of this Decree of Divorce and the Confidential Property Settlement Document. In the event that either party fails to do so within ten (10) days from the date of this Decree, then this Decree shall operate as such conveyances.

IT IS SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED BY THE COURT.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: Editor's Note: This case is a very good example of how people with financial resources who have come to hate one another can have a first class fight over the kids, the house, the cars and about everything else.