Supreme Court
In re J.Y.O., a child
- Case number: 22-0787
- Legal category: Family Law
- Subtype: Division of Marital Estate
- Set for oral argument: September 10, 2024
Case Summary
At issue in this case is the trial court’s characterization and division of a discretionary bonus, retirement account, and marital residence.
The trial court rendered Lauren and Hakan Oksuzler divorced in December 2019. The next February, Hakan was scheduled to receive a $140,000 bonus from his employer, Bank of America. The bonus was at the sole discretion of Bank of America and contingent on Hakan’s continued employment; however, the bonus was based on work he performed while the parties were still married. In addition to the bonus, Hakan contributed to a retirement account through Bank of America before and during the marriage. Hakan also owned the marital residence as his separate property before the marriage, but the parties executed a deed while they were married that listed both Hakan and Lauren as the grantor and grantee.
In August 2020, the trial court signed a final divorce decree that awarded Hakan as his separate property the $140,000 bonus, a portion of his retirement account, and the marital residence. The court of appeals (1) affirmed the judgment awarding Hakan the bonus because his right to it vested when the parties were no longer married; (2) reversed the judgment awarding Hakan a portion of his retirement account because he presented no evidence that the funds in the account were separate property; and (3) reversed the judgment awarding Hakan the marital residence because he presented no evidence rebutting the presumption that he gifted one half of the residence to Lauren.
Hakan petitioned the Supreme Court for review, arguing that the marital residence and a portion of his retirement account are his separate property. Lauren cross-petitioned the Court for review, arguing that the bonus should not be awarded entirely to Hakan as his separate property because it compensated him for work performed during the marriage.
The Court granted both petitions for review.
Case summaries are created by the Court's staff attorneys and law clerks and do not constitute the Court’s official descriptions or statements. Readers are encouraged to review the Court’s official opinions for specifics regarding each case. Links to the full case documents are included above.