## Facts

- Elizabeth Hutchings and Dean Hutchings were married for 22 years and had four children.
- By mutual decision during the marriage, Elizabeth stayed home to raise the children for about 16 years, limiting her work history and earning capacity.
- Elizabeth filed for divorce in 2005.
- After separation, Dean purchased a newly built 1,600-square-foot house and moved in with his girlfriend; he also traveled with her monthly.
- Elizabeth moved into a one-bedroom apartment with three of the parties’ children.
- At the time of trial, Elizabeth worked full time as a birth-certificate clerk and was earning about $23,000 per year, described as the maximum for that position, with no opportunity for advancement because she had only a high school diploma.
- Elizabeth testified she wanted to become self-supporting by earning a master’s degree in social work, which could allow her to earn up to about $39,000 per year.
- Elizabeth began classes toward the degree in January 2008 and expected it would take about five years to complete.
- Dean earned more than $70,000 per year and also received additional cash income.
- During the divorce proceedings, Dean paid Elizabeth combined child support and spousal support.
- After the last child became ineligible for child support in June 2007, Dean paid Elizabeth $900 per month in alimony alone.
- Elizabeth testified that $900 per month still left her with a substantial shortfall on basic living expenses and sought additional support while she pursued her degree.
- Dean argued that he should not have to pay alimony and that he should receive credit for amounts paid through the date of trial.
- The trial court awarded Elizabeth $250 per month in support alimony for three years.
- The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, and Elizabeth sought review in the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding only $250 per month for three years in support alimony where the record showed the wife’s ongoing need and the husband’s ability to pay after a 22-year marriage.
2. Whether the lower courts failed to apply Oklahoma support-alimony standards by giving insufficient weight to the wife’s limited earning capacity caused by marital choices and her plan for education aimed at self-support.

## Decision

- The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed the Court of Civil Appeals’ decision and reversed the trial court’s support-alimony award.
- The Court held that the minimal award did not reflect the evidence of Elizabeth’s need and Dean’s ability to pay and therefore fell outside the range of reasonable support-alimony determinations.
- The Court remanded the case to the trial court to recalculate support alimony consistent with the governing factors, including the goal of assisting Elizabeth’s transition toward self-support.

## Legal Principles

- Support alimony in Oklahoma turns primarily on the recipient spouse’s demonstrated need and the payor spouse’s ability to pay.
- Courts may award support alimony on a rehabilitative or transitional basis when the recipient shows a realistic plan and timeframe to improve earning capacity through education or training.
- In setting support alimony, courts may consider the length of the marriage, the parties’ earning capacities, and the economic consequences of marital decisions—such as one spouse leaving the workforce to raise children.
- Although trial courts have broad discretion in fashioning alimony awards, an award that does not reasonably correspond to the evidence of need and ability to pay may be reversed as an abuse of discretion.
- Appellate review remains deferential, but deference does not permit an award that effectively disregards undisputed evidence of one party’s financial shortfall and the other party’s capacity to provide support.

## Conclusion

In *In re the Marriage of Hutchings*, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that a $250-per-month, three-year support-alimony award after a 22-year marriage was an abuse of discretion because it did not reasonably account for Elizabeth’s demonstrated shortfall and limited earning capacity—shaped by years spent as a homemaker—and Dean’s substantially greater income and ability to pay; the Court reversed and remanded for a new support-alimony calculation aligned with Oklahoma’s need-and-ability-to-pay framework and the transitional purpose of support alimony.


In re the Marriage of Hutchings, 250 P.3d 324 (2011)