Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Billion-Dollar Divorce
Headlines across the country proclaimed, “Harold Hamm to Pay One of the Biggest Divorce Settlements in History,” and “Sue Ann Hamm: One Billion Dollar Divorce Settlement Is Not Enough.” The Oklahoma City divorce case of Sue Ann Hamm and Harold Hamm (a 68% owner of publicly traded oil company Continental Resources Inc.) garnered widespread attention due to the approximately $16 billion of assets at issue. Sue Ann Hamm's award of approximately $1 billion of the $16 billion of potential assets has been the focal point of stories and discussions about the case; however, the details of the decision, as well as the manner in which the case was handled, serve as important reminders of how large-asset divorce cases are litigated across the country and in Pennsylvania in particular.
The Case
Both Sue Ann Hamm and Harold Hamm have appealed the Oklahoma City trial court's decision, each arguing that they received too little of the marital estate (and the other party too much). Although at first blush Sue Ann Hamm's award of $1 billion might seem to some observers like good cause for an appeal by her, the actual distribution of what the Oklahoma City court determined were the marital assets was equal. As noted on page 71 of the court's opinion, Harold Hamm was ordered to pay his ex-wife just under $1 billion to effectuate an equal division of the marital assets. His receipt of the majority of the $16 billion of assets at issue was based on the fact that he held his interest in the majority of his assets before they married. Under Oklahoma law, only the increase in value of premarital assets that are attributed to “active” or “nonpassive” forces is marital property. The Oklahoma City court, therefore, reviewed the manner by which Harold Hamm's premarital property increased in value, including the appreciation in corporate stock and changes to the nature of his business interests, and determined that the vast majority of the increase in value was attributed to passive forces, or forces independent of his involvement. Therefore, the trial court held that those assets were his nonmarital property that could not be awarded to Sue Ann Hamm.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.