Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision Whether the evidence is sufficient to establish insupportability is left to the discretion of the trial court when the divorce is tried by the court. FACTS:Alta Scott petitioned to end her 53-year marriage to John Scott. She alleged that the marriage had become insupportable due to discord or conflict of personalities that destroys the legitimate ends of the marital relationship and prevents any reasonable expectation of reconciliation. The evidence showed: 1. the Scotts had not slept in the same bedroom for approximately 22 years or lived under the same roof for more than a year prior to the final hearing; 2. Alta had changed her lifestyle; 3. Alta had attempted to run John off of the road with a vehicle; 4. John believed Alta was undermining his business; and 5. John wanted to “get rid of this deal.” The trial court granted the divorce, and the court awarded title to 40 various parcels of land to J & J Panhandle Construction, which John was director and president of, and which he was a co-shareholder with his son. The property was originally transferred to the Scotts by another company that was indebted to J & J for payment. The son intervened in the divorce proceeding, claiming that John had engaged in fraud, but John only filed a general denial to the charge before the court made its award. In dividing property, the trial court valued a five-acre parcel of land, with a house, outbuildings, two garages, a windmill, stables and other improvements at $35,610, which was the same value Alta said the Hutchinson County Appraisal District assigned to the property three years prior to trial. John appeals the grant of divorce, as well as the award of the property to J & J and the valuation and division of property. HOLDING:Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part. The court first finds that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s decision to grant the divorce. The court then holds that John waived any challenge to the son’s petition. Essentially a derivative suit that omitted various statutory pleading requirements, John did not make any special exceptions. There was enough evidence to support a finding that J & J did actually own the property. The property was transferred in satisfaction of a debt owed to J & J; consequently a purchase money resulting trust arose in J & J’s favor. The court said there is some evidence to support the valuation of the first parcel of land. However, there is also evidence that the realty had a market value of $80,000 and that values reflected by the tax rolls do not reflect actual value. The court concludes that the court’s valuation is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. OPINION:Per curiam; Johnson, C.J., Quinn and Boyd, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.