The Oklahoma Bar Journal January 2026

34. 1994 OK 30, 872 P.2d 395. 35. Hardaway , ¶10, 398.

17. Hardaway , ¶10, 398 (“The burden of proof is upon the non-owning spouse to prove such enhancement is the result of joint endeavors.”). 18. 1967 OK 97, 428 P.2d 218. 19. Templeton , ¶5, 252, n. 4 (citing Lee Kuzel Simpson, “Domestic Relations: The Role Of Joint Industry In The Determination Of What Is Jointly Acquired Property” 32 Okla. L. Rev. 214, 216 (1979). 20. See Harden v. Harden , 1938 OK 54, 77 P.2d 721; Moyers v. Moyers , 1962 OK 146, 372 P.2d 844; Longmire v. Longmire , 1962 OK 219, 376 P.2d 273; Funk v. Funk , 1957 OK 320, 319 P.2d 599; Champion v. Champion , 1950 OK 81, 218 P.2d 354; Kupka v. Kupka , 1942 OK 137, 124 P.2d 389; Van Horn v. Van Horn , 1941 OK 284, 119 P.2d 825; Tobin v. Tobin , 1923 OK 164, 213 P. 884; Bruce v. Bruce , 1930 OK 38, 285 P. 30. 21. Williams , ¶19, 222 (1967). 22. Id. ¶21, 222 (1967). 23. Id. at ¶19, 222 (1967). 24. Simpson , 32 Okla. L. Rev. at 216. 25. Templeton , ¶5, 252. 26. Simpson , 32 Okla. L. Rev. at 217 (“ Kirkland v. Kirkland recognized that such appreciation could be subject to division if a spouse proved that it was the result of his or her contribution of skills or funds.”). Referencing Kirkland v. Kirkland , 1971 OK 98, 488 P.2d 1222. 27. Kirkland , ¶5, 1225. 28. Kirkland v. Kirkland , 1971 OK 98, 488 P.2d 1222; Moyers v. Moyers , 1962 OK 146, 372 P.2d 844; Collins v. Okla. Tax. Comm ., 1968 OK 148, 446 P.2d 290; Haynes v. Haynes , 1946 OK 174, 169 P.2d 563.

29. Haynes , ¶11, 223; Moyers , ¶11, 847;

Kirkland , ¶18, 1227.

36. The assets at issue were primarily oil and gas interests and certificates of deposit, which were not active ventures by the owning spouse. The nonowning spouse presented no evidence to suggest any in-marriage enhancement. Hardaway , ¶¶11-12, 298-9. 37. Thielenhaus , ¶9, 930. 38. Thielenhaus , ¶10, 931 (relying on May v. May , 1979 OK 82, 596 P.2d 536). 39. See, e.g., Murphy v. Murphy , 2010 OK CIV APP 1, ¶¶28-29, 225 P.3d 820, 828. 40. Thielenhaus , ¶10, 931, n. 18. 41. Spector, 59 OBJ at 3688. 42. 2024 OK CIV APP 8, 544 P.3d 960. 43. Williams , ¶26, 967-8 (2024). 44. Id. , ¶27, 968, n. 8 (2024). 47. Id. , ¶25, 967 (2024). 48. Id ., ¶5, 963 (2024). 49. Spector, 59 OBJ at 3688; Manhart v. Manhart , 1986 OK 12, 725 P.2d 1234 (“there is a presumption that property acquired during coverture is property acquired by the joint efforts of husband and wife.”). 50. 2022 OK CIV APP 25, 513 P.3d 569. 51. Dancer , ¶18, 575 (internal citations omitted). 52. This was the identical solution utilized in the case of Williams v. Williams , 1967 OK 97, 428 P.2d 218 (the apocryphal source of Thielenhaus ’ burden of proof rule) almost 30 years before Thielenhaus was decided. 45. Id. (2024). 46. Id. (2024).

30. Templeton at ¶5, 252. 31. Id . This portion of Templeton is supported by citation to Wright v. Wright , 1978 OK CIV APP 10, 577 P.2d 922 and Armstrong v. Armstrong , 1969 OK 193, 462 P.2d 656. In both cases, a complete lack of evidence with respect to in-marriage enhancement was fatal to the claims of the nonowning spouses. Wright appears to suggest the nonowning spouse bears the burden of proof but has not been cited as authority for that proposition to any significant extent. 32. The case of Mothershed v. Mothershed , 1985 OK 23, 701 P.2d 405 seems to have adopted the burden shifting approach. There was substantial evidence that the increase in value was due solely to passive appreciation of separately acquired stock but little evidence of joint efforts. The case of Ford v. Ford , 1988 OK 103, 766 P.2d 950 did not suggest the existence of a burden of proof with respect to in-marriage enhancement, simply noting, “Where one spouse brings separate property to a marriage and an increased value of the property occurs as a result of joint efforts of the husband and wife, the other spouse is entitled to an interest in the appreciation of the property.” Id. , ¶4, 952. 33. Robert G. Spector, “Apportionment of the Increase in Value of Separate Property During Marriage: The Effect of Ford v. Ford ,” 59 OBJ 3683, 3688 (December 1988). This article was cited in Thielenhaus , though, as noted below, Thielenhaus reached a contrary result.

ONE ASSOCIATION MANY OPPORTUNITIES

JOIN AN OBA COMMITTEE TODAY! Get more involved in the OBA, network with colleagues and work together for the betterment of our profession and our communities. More than 20 active committees offer you the chance to serve in a way that is meaningful for you. Now is your opportunity to join other volunteer lawyers in making our association the best of its kind! To join, visit www.okbar.org/committees/committee-sign-up.

Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff.

22 | JANUARY 2026

THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL