Okla. Stat. » Title 43 — MARRIAGE AND FAMILY
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 43, § 121 (2026)

Restoration of maiden or former name - Alimony - Division

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

of property. A. When a dissolution of marriage is granted, the decree shall restore: 1. To the wife her maiden or former name, if her name was changed as a result of the marriage and if she so desires; 2. To the husband his former name, if his name was changed as a result of the marriage and if he so desires. B. The court shall enter its decree confirming in each spouse the property owned by him or her before marriage and the undisposed-

of property acquired after marriage by him or her in his or her own right. Either spouse may be allowed such alimony out of real and personal property of the other as the court shall think reasonable, having due regard to the value of such property at the time of the dissolution of marriage. Alimony may be allowed from real or personal property, or both, or in the form of money judgment, payable either in gross or in installments, as the court may deem just and equitable. 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, subject to a valid antenuptial contract in writing, make such division between the parties as may appear just and reasonable, by a division of the property in kind, or by setting the same apart to one of the parties, and requiring the other thereof to be paid such sum as may be just and proper to effect a fair and just division thereof. The court may set apart a portion of the separate estate of a spouse to the other spouse for the support of the children of the marriage where custody resides with that spouse. C. A servicemember’s portion of Special Monthly Compensation (SMC) awarded by or from the United States Department of Veterans Affairs for service-connected loss or loss of use of specific organs or extremities shall be separate property, not divisible as a marital asset nor as community property. For purposes of identifying SMC, it is the sole responsibility of the servicemember to prove with competent evidence what amount of his or her disability compensation is SMC. D. A servicemember's portion of Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) shall be separate property, not divisible as a marital asset nor as community property, if a specific dollar amount of CRSC can be proved by the servicemember as compensation for combat-related loss of limb or loss of bodily function and the CRSC award was applied for and established prior to the date of the filing of the dissolution of marriage action. E. Pursuant to the federal Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Act, 10 U.S.C., Section 1408, a court may treat disposable retired or retainer pay payable to a military member either as property solely of the member or as property of the member and the spouse of the member. If a state court determines that the disposable retired or retainer pay of a military member is the sole and separate property of the military member, the court shall submit clear and concise written findings of such determination to be included in the decree or final order. If a state court determines that the disposable retired or retainer pay of a military member is marital property, the court shall submit clear and concise written findings of such determination to be included in the decree or final order and shall award an amount consistent with the rank, pay grade,

and time of service of the member at the date of the filing of the petition, unless the court finds a more equitable date due to the economic separation of the parties. F. Unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, any division of an active duty military member's retirement or retainer pay shall use the following language: "The former spouse is awarded a percentage of the member's disposable military retired pay, to be computed by multiplying fifty percent (50%) times a fraction, the numerator of which is ____x____ months of marriage during the member's creditable military service, divided by the member's total number of months of creditable military service." G. In the case of a member's retiring from reserve duty, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, any division of a reservist's retirement or retainer pay shall use the following language: "The former spouse is awarded a percentage of the member's disposable military retired pay, to be computed by multiplying fifty percent (50%) times a fraction, the numerator of which is __X____reserve retirement points earned during the period of the marriage, divided by the member's total number of reserve retirement points earned." R.L.1910, § 4969. Amended by Laws 1975, c. 350, § 1, eff. Oct. 1, 1975; Laws 1976, c. 154, § 1; Laws 1985, c. 39, § 1, emerg. eff. April 19, 1985. Renumbered from § 1278 of Title 12 by Laws 1989, c. 333, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 1989. Amended by Laws 1992, c. 252, § 3, eff. Sept. 1, 1992; Laws 2006, c. 311, § 5, emerg. eff. June 8, 2006; Laws 2012, c. 261, § 2, emerg. eff. May 15, 2012; Laws 2012, c. 334, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2012.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 46 cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1990–2023 · leading case: Thielenhaus v. Thielenhaus, 890 P.2d 925 (Okla. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Thielenhaus v. Thielenhaus, 890 P.2d 925 (Okla. 1995). · cites it 5× “8 The latter figure, the husband argues, represents the divisible enhanced value of the fund and urges that the distinction between enhanced/separate (non-divisible) and enhaneed/marital (divisible) property is consistent with statutory law, 43 O.S.1991 § 121, 9 and extant…”
Standefer v. Standefer, 2001 OK 37 (Okla. 2001). · cites it 3× “Okla. Stat. tit. 43, § 121 (1991). Because the property was jointly acquired, it was subject to equitable distribution, and the court did not err in finding that the analytic method was not applicable to the annuities acquired from the Tortfeasor I settlement, funds accumulated…”
Bartlett v. Bartlett, 2006 OK CIV APP 112 (Okla. Civ. App. 2006). · cites it 3× “43 O.S.2001 § 121. Or, if the trial court determines the parties gifted this marital property to Wife’s separate estate, then the trial court must set that property aside to Wife.”
Holleyman v. Holleyman, 2003 OK 48 (Okla. 2003). · cites it 2× “1981), this Court held that under section 1278 of title 12 of the Oklahoma Statutes (now Okla.Stat.tit. 43 § 121), a district court did not have jurisdiction to divide a husband's future earning absent a recitation in the decree the *926 parties intended to circumvent the…”
Marriage of Smith v. Villareal, 298 P.3d 533 (Okla. 2012). · cites it 2× “3 ¶ 8 Title 43 O.S.Supp. 2006 § 121 requires a fair and equitable division of property acquired during the marriage by the joint industry of a husband and wife.”
Wilkinson v. Wilkinson, 905 So. 2d 1 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “17 (marital property includes retirement benefits of both spouses acquired during the marriage and is subject to equitable division); Oklahoma: Okla. Stat. tit. 43, § 121 , and Jackson v.”
Whitehead v. Whitehead, 1999 OK 91 (Okla. 1999). · cites it 2× “” The statute, now codified at 43 O.S.Supp.1998, § 121, 4 no *1101 longer contains the phrase.”
Thrash v. Thrash, 809 P.2d 665 (Okla. 1991). · cites it 2× “1981 , §§ 1278 and 1289, now 43 O.S.Supp. 1990, §§ 121 and 134; Mayhue v.”
Larman v. Larman, 1999 OK 83 (Okla. 1999). “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, subject to a valid antenuptial contract in writing, make such division between…”
Wieland v. Gordon (In re Gordon), 509 B.R. 359 (Bankr. N.D. Okla 2014). · cites it 2× “See Okla. Stat. tit. 43, § 121 ; Manhart v. Manhart, 725 P.”
George Gordon, Jr. v. United States Bankr. Court for the N. Dist. of Oklahoma, 526 B.R. 376 (10th Cir. BAP 2015). “2013) (property acquired during marriage is presumed to be marital property); see also Okla. Stat. tit. 43, § 121 (B) (1985) ("As to .”
Mocnik v. Mocnik, 838 P.2d 500 (Okla. 1992). “Title 43 O.S.1991, § 121 provides in pertinent part: 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…”
Show all 46 citing cases →
Okla. Stat. tit. 43, § 121(B): 6 cases
Marriage of Smith v. Villareal, 298 P.3d 533 (Okla. 2012). “3 ¶ 8 Title 43 O.S.Supp. 2006 § 121 requires a fair and equitable division of property acquired during the marriage by the joint industry of a husband and wife.”
Owens v. Owens, 2023 OK 12 (Okla. 2023).
Fitzpatrick v. Fitzpatrick, 2023 OK 81 (Okla. 2023).
In Re the Marriage of Cotton, 2023 OK CIV APP 21 (Okla. Civ. App. 2022).
Fitzpatrick v. Fitzpatrick, 2023 OK 81 (Okla. 2023).
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.