Oklahoma Statutes
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 1278 (2026)
Renumbered as § 121 of Title 43 by Laws 1989, c. 333, §
✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
OK-LEGoklegislature.gov
JustiaOkla. Stat.
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
1, eff. Nov. 1, 1989.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 76
cases, 1954–2016 · leading case: Ettinger v. Ettinger, 637 P.2d 63 (Okla. 1981).
Ettinger v. Ettinger, 637 P.2d 63 (Okla. 1981). “Appellant contends that the divorce decree was a consent judgment or decree which cannot be modified without consent of the parties, and that Appellee waived the requirements of 12 O.S.Supp. 1978, § 1278, [1] that a property division be made out of property which was acquired by…”
Teel v. Teel, 766 P.2d 994 (Okla. 1988). “The relevant statute, 12 O.S.Supp. 1985 § 1278, [9] addresses itself only to a division of property acquired during the marriage; it makes no specific mention of jointly incurred obligations.”
Mothershed v. Mothershed, 701 P.2d 405 (Okla. 1985). “The present 184,422 Entex shares owned by Post Oak reflect the aforementioned contribution of Big Chief stock, the merger and 1974 purchase transaction, plus additions due to various stock dividends and stock splits, and minus 6,000 and 45,000 shares sold by Post Oak in 1977 and…”
Carpenter v. Carpenter, 657 P.2d 646 (Okla. 1983). “PENSION AND PROFIT SHARING PLAN PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY THE PARTIES JOINTLY WITHIN THE MEANING OF 12 O.S.1981, § 1278? At the time of the divorce and prior thereto, Medical Neurologists, Inc.”
Catron v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. of Tulsa, 434 P.2d 263 (Okla. 1967). “12 O.S.1961, § 1278; 84 O.S.1961, § 213(2).”
Hubbard v. Hubbard, 603 P.2d 747 (Okla. 1979). “[3] 12 O.S.Supp. 1978, § 1278, provides: "* * * 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 make such division between the…”
McCoy v. McCoy, 429 P.2d 999 (Okla. 1967). “Under her first proposition plaintiff contends, in effect, that under 12 O.S.1961, § 1278 and Oklahoma cases construing it, the trial court should have awarded her all of her separate property, free and clear of any and all encumbrances imposed thereon -during the marriage, and…”
May v. May, 596 P.2d 536 (Okla. 1979). “Husband asserts that the home, as his separate property, is not reachable for judicial division under the provisions of 12 O.S.Supp.1976 § 1278, because it is not part of “joint acquisitions”.”
Perry v. Perry, 551 P.2d 256 (Okla. 1976). “2d 143 (1973), the Court addressed the contention that 12 O.S.1971, § 1278 required the trial court in a divorce action to divide all real property in a property settlement into fee simple estates, and that to grant a lesser undivided interest rendered that portion of the…”
Collins v. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, 446 P.2d 290 (Okla. 1968). “The decision reflects that court’s recognition of our statute, 12 O.S.1961, § 1278, and decisional law relevant to nature, existence of, and necessity for equitable division of property jointly acquired during marriage.”
United Oklahoma Bank v. Moss, 793 P.2d 1359 (Okla. 1990). “To meet the terms of Title 12 O.S.1981 § 1278, 9 the divorce decree severed the spouses’ common title.”
Mayhue v. Mayhue, 706 P.2d 890 (Okla. 1985). “1961 § 1278 — as well as those of its current version, 12 O.S.Supp.1985 § 1278 — require that an in-kind alimony award be “just and equitable,” 14 it would be a better practice for the trial court, when fashioning an in-kind support alimony award, to ascertain the present value…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.