Oklahoma Statutes
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 1289 (2026)
Renumbered as § 134 of Title 43 by Laws 1989, c. 333, §
✓ current as of July 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 52
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1969–2022 · leading case: Messenger v. Messenger, 827 P.2d 865 (Okla. 1992).
Messenger v. Messenger, 827 P.2d 865 (Okla. 1992). “the majority opinion in the case at bar addressing Clifton regarding property division awards, and those sections of the majority opinion addressing support alimony awards can best be summarized by stating that what the United States Congress has provided in the Uniformed…”
Clifton v. Clifton, 801 P.2d 693 (Okla. 1990). “Stokes , which was decided on June 30, 1987, relied upon the 1987 amendment to 12 O.S. § 1289, the Uniformed Services Former Spouse's Protection Act, and the intent of Congress with regard to the Act as expressed in the Senate Report.”
Nantz v. Nantz, 749 P.2d 1137 (Okla. 1988). “86, § 1; 1985 Okla. Sess. Laws, ch. 188, § 1; and 1987 Okla.”
Stuart v. Stuart, 555 P.2d 611 (Okla. 1976). “12 O.S.1971 § 1289 presently provides : “(a) In a divorce decree which provides for periodic payments of alimony, the Court may, in its discretion, declare that the obligation to pay future installments automatically ceases on the death or remarriage of the person receiving ,the…”
Hubbard v. Hubbard, 603 P.2d 747 (Okla. 1979). “We also held that under the provisions of 12 O.S.Supp. 1976, § 1289, the trial court could, at the time of the decree, designate all or a portion of each alimony payment as support or alimony pertaining to a division of property.”
Evans v. Evans, 852 P.2d 145 (Okla. 1993). “1991 § 134(A)), provide: "In any divorce decree which provides for periodic alimony payments, the court shall plainly state, at the time of entering the original decree, the dollar amount of all or a portion of each payment which is designated as support and the dollar amount of…”
Smith v. Smith, 652 P.2d 297 (Okla. 1982). “OPALA, Justice, concurring specially: I concur in the court’s analysis that gives the statute under consideration, 12 O.S.1981 § 1289 D, prospective application from and after its effective date of October 1, 1979.”
Roberts v. Roberts, 657 P.2d 153 (Okla. 1983). “I do not know of any legitimate state purpose served by picking out one group of people with a living arrangement which is lawful but outside the social norm and penalizing them.”
Perry v. Perry, 551 P.2d 256 (Okla. 1976). “Husband commenced proceedings to terminate the alimony payments under the provisions of 12 O.S.1971 § 1289(b). 1 *257 The trial court refused to terminate such payments and husband appealed.”
Greer v. Greer, 807 P.2d 791 (Okla. 1991). “The Oklahoma Legislature on June 3, 1987 passed 12 O.S.§ 1289. Section § 1289(F) reads as follows: Pursuant to the federal Uniformed Services Former Spouse's Protection Act (PL 97-522), the provisions of subsection E of this section shall have retrospective and prospective…”
Dickason v. Dickason, 607 P.2d 674 (Okla. 1980). “1 The issue presented by this *676 appeal is: If the pre-suit spousal agreement as to the amount of support-alimony and the court decree based thereon on both silent with respect to the statutorily-imposed terminability features that attach to an award by force of 12…”
Stokes v. Stokes, 738 P.2d 1346 (Okla. 1987). “Finding a need by the appellant, and the ability to pay by the appellee, the court awarded her the amount of $90,000 payable at the rate of $500 per month, and subject to 12 O.S. § 1289. 1 Title 12 O.S.Supp.1986, § 1289 was amended June 8, 1987 2 and now provides that: “F.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 1289(A): 8 cases
Clifton v. Clifton, 801 P.2d 693 (Okla. 1990). “Stokes , which was decided on June 30, 1987, relied upon the 1987 amendment to 12 O.S. § 1289, the Uniformed Services Former Spouse's Protection Act, and the intent of Congress with regard to the Act as expressed in the Senate Report.”
Smith v. Smith, 652 P.2d 297 (Okla. 1982). “OPALA, Justice, concurring specially: I concur in the court’s analysis that gives the statute under consideration, 12 O.S.1981 § 1289 D, prospective application from and after its effective date of October 1, 1979.”
Messenger v. Messenger, 827 P.2d 865 (Okla. 1992). “the majority opinion in the case at bar addressing Clifton regarding property division awards, and those sections of the majority opinion addressing support alimony awards can best be summarized by stating that what the United States Congress has provided in the Uniformed…”
Baker v. Baker, 710 P.2d 129 (Okla. Civ. App. 1985).
Roberts v. Roberts, 657 P.2d 153 (Okla. 1983). “I do not know of any legitimate state purpose served by picking out one group of people with a living arrangement which is lawful but outside the social norm and penalizing them.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 1289(B): 10 cases
Dickason v. Dickason, 607 P.2d 674 (Okla. 1980). “1 The issue presented by this *676 appeal is: If the pre-suit spousal agreement as to the amount of support-alimony and the court decree based thereon on both silent with respect to the statutorily-imposed terminability features that attach to an award by force of 12…”
Messenger v. Messenger, 827 P.2d 865 (Okla. 1992). “the majority opinion in the case at bar addressing Clifton regarding property division awards, and those sections of the majority opinion addressing support alimony awards can best be summarized by stating that what the United States Congress has provided in the Uniformed…”
Isenhower v. Isenhower, 666 P.2d 238 (Okla. Civ. App. 1983).
Nantz v. Nantz, 749 P.2d 1137 (Okla. 1988). “86, § 1; 1985 Okla. Sess. Laws, ch. 188, § 1; and 1987 Okla.”
Batchelor v. Batchelor, 585 P.2d 1120 (Okla. 1978).
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 1289(C): 1 case
Sooner Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Mobley, 645 P.2d 1000 (Okla. 1982).
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 1289(D): 5 cases
Nantz v. Nantz, 749 P.2d 1137 (Okla. 1988). “86, § 1; 1985 Okla. Sess. Laws, ch. 188, § 1; and 1987 Okla.”
Roberts v. Roberts, 657 P.2d 153 (Okla. 1983). “I do not know of any legitimate state purpose served by picking out one group of people with a living arrangement which is lawful but outside the social norm and penalizing them.”
Smith v. Smith, 652 P.2d 297 (Okla. 1982). “OPALA, Justice, concurring specially: I concur in the court’s analysis that gives the statute under consideration, 12 O.S.1981 § 1289 D, prospective application from and after its effective date of October 1, 1979.”
Smith v. Smith, 849 P.2d 1097 (Okla. Civ. App. 1992).
Epperson v. Epperson, 972 P.2d 362 (Okla. Civ. App. 1998).
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 1289(E): 5 cases
Messenger v. Messenger, 827 P.2d 865 (Okla. 1992). “the majority opinion in the case at bar addressing Clifton regarding property division awards, and those sections of the majority opinion addressing support alimony awards can best be summarized by stating that what the United States Congress has provided in the Uniformed…”
Clifton v. Clifton, 801 P.2d 693 (Okla. 1990). “Stokes , which was decided on June 30, 1987, relied upon the 1987 amendment to 12 O.S. § 1289, the Uniformed Services Former Spouse's Protection Act, and the intent of Congress with regard to the Act as expressed in the Senate Report.”
Evans v. Evans, 852 P.2d 145 (Okla. 1993). “1991 § 134(A)), provide: "In any divorce decree which provides for periodic alimony payments, the court shall plainly state, at the time of entering the original decree, the dollar amount of all or a portion of each payment which is designated as support and the dollar amount of…”
Robillard v. Robillard, 854 P.2d 889 (Okla. 1993).
Witter v. Witter, 762 P.2d 919 (Okla. 1988).
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 1289(F): 7 cases
Messenger v. Messenger, 827 P.2d 865 (Okla. 1992). “the majority opinion in the case at bar addressing Clifton regarding property division awards, and those sections of the majority opinion addressing support alimony awards can best be summarized by stating that what the United States Congress has provided in the Uniformed…”
Clifton v. Clifton, 801 P.2d 693 (Okla. 1990). “Stokes , which was decided on June 30, 1987, relied upon the 1987 amendment to 12 O.S. § 1289, the Uniformed Services Former Spouse's Protection Act, and the intent of Congress with regard to the Act as expressed in the Senate Report.”
Evans v. Evans, 852 P.2d 145 (Okla. 1993). “1991 § 134(A)), provide: "In any divorce decree which provides for periodic alimony payments, the court shall plainly state, at the time of entering the original decree, the dollar amount of all or a portion of each payment which is designated as support and the dollar amount of…”
Greer v. Greer, 807 P.2d 791 (Okla. 1991). “The Oklahoma Legislature on June 3, 1987 passed 12 O.S.§ 1289. Section § 1289(F) reads as follows: Pursuant to the federal Uniformed Services Former Spouse's Protection Act (PL 97-522), the provisions of subsection E of this section shall have retrospective and prospective…”
Barth v. Barth, 803 P.2d 1117 (Okla. 1990).
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 1289(G): 2 cases
Nantz v. Nantz, 749 P.2d 1137 (Okla. 1988). “86, § 1; 1985 Okla. Sess. Laws, ch. 188, § 1; and 1987 Okla.”
Messenger v. Messenger, 827 P.2d 865 (Okla. 1992). “the majority opinion in the case at bar addressing Clifton regarding property division awards, and those sections of the majority opinion addressing support alimony awards can best be summarized by stating that what the United States Congress has provided in the Uniformed…”
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 1289(b): 8 cases
Stuart v. Stuart, 555 P.2d 611 (Okla. 1976). “12 O.S.1971 § 1289 presently provides : “(a) In a divorce decree which provides for periodic payments of alimony, the Court may, in its discretion, declare that the obligation to pay future installments automatically ceases on the death or remarriage of the person receiving ,the…”
Perry v. Perry, 551 P.2d 256 (Okla. 1976). “Husband commenced proceedings to terminate the alimony payments under the provisions of 12 O.S.1971 § 1289(b). 1 *257 The trial court refused to terminate such payments and husband appealed.”
Shea v. Shea, 537 P.2d 417 (Okla. 1975).
Acker v. Acker, 594 P.2d 1216 (Okla. 1979).
Huchteman v. Huchteman, 557 P.2d 427 (Okla. 1976).
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.