Oklahoma business attorneys work with their clients in ways designed to avoid litigation.

Oklahoma City, OK -- (ReleaseWire) -- 07/17/2020 -- Unfortunately, no matter how tightly contracts are drawn, and no matter how strictly state law is followed, disputes will still arise. At our business litigation law firm, clients benefit from the in-depth knowledge of the law that our business lawyers apply to our cases.

Types Of Business Disputes Leading To Litigation

There are many disputes that lead to litigation. A few examples of the types of disputes that arise include, but are not limited to:

Breach of contract. Businesses function on contracts. Contracts between business partners, with vendors who supply the business with goods and services, between other businesses with which a business does business, and so forth. When one party allegedly breaches a contract, litigation is often required.

Breach of fiduciary duty. This generally involves disputes between partners, or shareholders and partners.

Business bankruptcy. We help determine which type of bankruptcy is in the best interest of your business. We work to restructure the business and keep it running if that is the outcome you are seeking.

Business torts. Just a few examples of business torts include fraud, negligent misrepresentation, interference with a business transaction, and civil theft.

Insurance disputes involving coverage. We work to prove coverage in those cases where you submitted a claim only to be informed by your insurer that you have no coverage.

Intellectual property and trade secret violations. These can be complicated and require several steps in proving or defending an alleged violation.

Partnership conflicts. These range from simple disputes that are easy to resolve with some diplomatic intervention to ones that are so serious, the business is dissolved.

Real estate problems of all kinds. This includes leasing or purchasing agreements.

We Try To Resolve Cases In Ways That Are The Least Disruptive To The Continuation Of The Business There Are Times When Negotiating A Settlement Is In Your Best Interest. Other Times, Going To Trial Is The Best Option.

The strong capabilities our lawyers bring to our business law cases have earned our firm respect from our past clients, and in the legal community and courtrooms throughout Oklahoma and Texas. Contact us for a consultation.

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-3.htm

Insurance companies are just like any other business—they want to make money.

Oklahoma City, OK -- (ReleaseWire) -- 05/08/2020 -- Unfortunately, they sometimes use their customers to cut costs by denying claims that they should pay.

In some circumstances, denials may have some reasonable rationale behind them. In other situations, denied claims may just be an attempt to save the insurance company a few bucks because it thinks you will not challenge them.

What Is a Bad Faith Claim?

A bad faith insurance claim arises when an insurance company unreasonably denies your claim or refuses to pay you the funds that you are entitled to receive under your policy based upon some unreasonable justification.

In every contract in Oklahoma, there is an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. An insurance company acts in "bad faith" when it unreasonably refuses to provide you the insurance coverage you bargained for.

Of course, an insurance company has to make more than just an honest mistake to trigger a bad faith claim. But when an insurance company withholds coverage unreasonably, then it can be held liable for "bad faith".

Money Damages in Bad Faith Insurance Claims

When an insurance company denies your claim or does not pay you what it should in bad faith, you can take action to recover the funds you should have received.

Money damages in a bad faith claim include:

The money that you should have been paid under the insurance policy;
Emotional damages for having to fight with the insurance company;
Legal fees; and
Court costs

Bad faith insurance claims are designed to not only give you the benefits you should have received under the policy, but also punitive damages.

Getting Help with Your Bad Faith Claim

If you have made an insurance claim that was unreasonably denied, you may have a bad faith claim. Our firm can help you determine whether you have a claim and what your next steps should be. Put our experience and in-depth knowledge to work for you. Call today to schedule an appointment or to get more information.

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-3.htm

Uninsured motorist (UM) coverage provides compensation to accident victims when they are injured by a driver who lacks sufficient insurance.

Oklahoma City, OK -- (ReleaseWire) -- 03/25/2020 -- UM policies typically reserve the insurer's "subrogation" rights. This means the UM carrier can seek to recover any benefits paid from the negligent driver or their insurer.

If the person covered by the UM policy interferes with these subrogation rights, the carrier may deny coverage.

This happened in a recent Oklahoma case, Brooks v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company. Vickie Brooks was injured in a March 2015 auto accident. She was driving a vehicle owned by her employer. The employer previously purchased $1 million in UM coverage for its vehicles from Philadelphia Indemnity.

Brooks also had personal auto insurance, as did the other driver involved.

Brooks filed claims with both of these insurers following the accident. She later signed releases with both companies, discharging their liability in exchange for the respective policy limits.

Brooks then filed a claim for UM benefits with Philadelphia Indemnity.

Later, Brooks brought a lawsuit in Oklahoma City federal court. She alleged Philadelphia Indemnity was violating Oklahoma law by failing to pay her the $1 million in UM benefits under her employer's policy.

In a February 28, 2020, opinion, U.S. District Judge Charles B. Goodwin rejected Brooks' lawsuit. He awarded summary judgment to Philadelphia Indemnity. The judge found that Brooks improperly "destroyed" Philadelphia Indemnity's subrogation rights by failing to inform it before settling with the other two insurance companies. She therefore could not collect under the UM policy.

Goodwin noted that Philadelphia Indemnity was listed as the insurer of record on the official police accident report.

This effectively put Brooks on-notice about the UM carrier's subrogation rights. The judge said "no reasonable jury" could therefore find that Brooks did not "knowingly" interfere with Philadelphia Indemnity's subrogation rights.

Oklahoma City personal injury and insurance attorney George H. Brown explained why subrogation rights were such a big deal in Oklahoma.

"A UM carrier is basically paying a debt owed by a third party, that is the negligent driver who caused an accident. The UM carrier therefore must have the ability to try and recoup its losses from the driver or other insurance companies. The accident victim must respect these rights. This means, among other things, the victim needs to inform the UM carrier before signing any agreement that releases another party from any liability for the accident."

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-3.htm

The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals held that commercial buyers, unlike less sophisticated residential buyers, could be held to different standards when it comes to warranty disclaimers in a real estate contract.

Oklahoma City, OK -- (ReleaseWire) -- 02/25/2020 -- In any real estate transaction there is a "due diligence" period. This is the time after a contract is signed when the buyer has the chance to inspect the property. If there are any defects in title, such as an inaccurate description of the property, the buyer has a chance to object. If the buyer does not object, their legal remedies going forward may be limited.

A February 13 decision from the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals, Oak Tree Partners, LLC v. Williams, provides an apt illustration. This case involved a failed land deal. Tracy Williams signed a contract in April 2014 to purchase several parcels of land from Oak Tree Partners (OTP). The contract identified a total of 99.71 acres.

The contract also provided for a 60-day due diligence period and contained a warranty disclaimer. After the due diligence period expired, Williams informed OTP that the actual amount of land was short by 6.47 acres. OTP said the shortfall was only 4.28 acres. And in any event, OTP said the warranty disclaimer absolved it of any liability for the error.

Williams refused to close the deal. He demanded a reduction in the purchase price. OTP balked. Litigation followed. Williams alleged OTP committed breach of contract. OTP alleged slander of title after Williams filed a lis pendens against the properties.

The trial judge dismissed Williams' claims on summary judgment. A jury then ruled in favor of OTP on its slander of title claim and ordered Williams to pay damages. Both sides appealed.

The Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, agreed with Williams that the trial judge erred in submitting the slander of title question to the jury. Williams was entitled to summary judgment on that issue. But the judge did not err in rejecting Williams' breach of contract and related claims.

Oklahoma City business and commercial litigation attorney George H. Brown explained that courts are not lenient with commercial buyers who fail to exercise due diligence. "The appeals court distinguished a commercial buyer from someone purchasing a home. A residential buyer is typically 'not skilled in real estate' and signs a contract drafted entirely by a professional. In those situations, Oklahoma courts have said a blanket warranty disclaimer made by the seller is invalid. But here, Williams was a 'sophisticated' commercial buyer who had adequate time to perform due diligence. Since he failed to object to the inaccurate property description before the due diligence period expired, he was out of luck."

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-3.htm

Seattle-Based Perkins Coie, Which Recently Worked On A Similar Issue In New Mexico, Will Advise The Governor’s Office In Its Escalating Gambling Dispute With Most Of The State’s Tribal Casinos.

Oklahoma City, OK -- (ReleaseWire) -- 01/27/2020 -- The agreement covers up to $300,000 in legal fees, and Perkins Coie may charge up to $750 per hour. The current dispute between thirty-five tribes and the state dates back to December 2019, when Governor Stitt announced that the current 15-year compact would expire on January 1, 2020. Under the terms of that compact, the agreement automatically renews unless either party requested renegotiation. The state tried to renegotiate the terms, and the tribes refused to accept the state's offer. So, as far as they are concerned, the agreement is still in effect. Nevertheless, Governor Stitt insisted that "All Class III gaming activity [became] illegal on January 1st of 2020."

The Dispute Is Currently In Federal Court.
"Even seemingly straightforward 'boilerplate' contract provisions can be vague," remarked Oklahoma civil litigation attorney George H. Brown. "So, do-it-yourself contracts might save a few pennies on the front end, but they usually cost a lot more on the back end." Real estate contracts are a good example, he added. The commitments and dollar amounts are substantial in both rental and sales agreements. Yet, very few parties work with attorneys. At best, they work with non-lawyer real estate brokers. As a result, confusing terms often find their way into these contracts. Real estate contracts often suffer from another flaw, viz, there is no meeting of the minds on key provisions. The parties usually exchange multiple electronically-transmitted drafts. Generally, the principles are not even in the same room when they consummate the deal.

The Four-Corners Rule Makes Contract Provisions Even More Important.
Generally, external (parole) evidence is inadmissible in contract dispute matters. The only thing that matters are the words between the "four corners" of the written document. Breach of contract matters have an additional dimension. Generally, parties have a duty to mitigate their losses. For example, if ABC Company defaults on a commercial lease, the landlord has a duty to rent the space to another tenant. The landlord cannot simply file suit against ABC for the entire amount.

In most breach of contract and contract interpretation claims, parties must establish their case by a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not). That's the lowest standard of proof in Oklahoma law. Therefore, it's important for an attorney to scrutinize the contract and look for any possible evidentiary advantage. It's also important for an attorney to be intimately familiar with ever-changing contract law.

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-3.htm

The long range Oklahoma City-area forecast calls for extreme weather in February 2020.

Oklahoma City, OK -- (ReleaseWire) -- 12/20/2019 -- Warm weather back-to-back with cold weather, even if there is little or no precipitation, is very hard on homes and other structures. That's especially true if the structure is more than a few years old.

"Most policyholders faithfully pay premiums for decades without making a single claim," observed Oklahoma insurance bad faith attorney George H. Brown. "Yet when policyholders need financial protection, too many homeowners' insurance companies take the money and run. They ignore their legal duty to quickly evaluate and settle winter weather damage claims."

Trees
High winds snap branches and push trees against exterior walls. Most policies cover damage to landscaping, especially when this damage affects the house or another structure. However, insurance adjusters often deny these claims. Frequently, they blame the homeowner for not trimming the trees. But legally, this excuse is usually invalid.

Foundation
Extreme weather is very hard on concrete. The freeze-thaw cycle accentuates the hairline cracks which naturally develop as the house settles. If the foundation needs work, it must be done immediately, especially with the spring rainy season just around the corner. If the insurance company drags its feet, it's important to call a lawyer straightaway.

Driveway
Concrete driveways and walkways face similar issues, specifically frost heave. Over time, tiny amounts of water collect in small cracks. When this water freezes, it expands. That expansion transforms tiny cracks into big ones. Frost heave also causes many driveway potholes. Insurance companies often balk at repairing small fissures. But it may be a matter of a small repair now or a large repair later.

Home Exterior
Extreme temperatures cause paint peeling. Peeled paint is not just a cosmetic issue. Paint protects siding and other structural elements from moisture buildup. This buildup causes wood rot. If trees brush against the paint, the damage is even worse.

Roof
This is the big one. Even a small amount of ice or a few nights of heavy frost often cause ice dams. The frozen water melts and slides off the roof into the gutter, where it refreezes. Since water cannot drain, it trickles back onto the roof. High winter winds are also very hard on shingles. Frequently, damages shingles are hard to see. Take a very close look at stress points, like near corners or chimneys. These points are where damage is most likely to occur.

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-3.htm

On October 22, 2019, the Oklahoma Supreme Court issued its opinion in Loven v. Church Mutual Insurance Company.

Oklahoma City, OK -- (ReleaseWire) -- 11/12/2019 -- This case addressed a claim for "intentional interference with a prospective economic business advantage." The justices held, for the first time, that such claims require a "showing of bad faith."

Lisa Gaye Loven worked as a general contractor.

In 2012, she was hired to repair several buildings owned by Edmond Christian Church (ECC) and Chisholm Creek Baptist Church (CCBC). In both cases, Loven "intervened" with the client's insurer, Church Mutual, to secure higher payments for the repair work.

Three years later, Loven applied to become a public insurance adjuster.

In her application, she disclosed that a former client was suing her. This prompted the Oklahoma Insurance Department to open an anti-fraud investigation. Department investigators spoke with Church Mutual employees about the 2012 repair work. Based on the information provided, the Department found Loven had "acted as an unlicensed adjuster" and "received inflated compensation" for her work.

Accordingly, the Department denied Loven's application to become an adjuster. The State of Oklahoma subsequently charged Loven with felony insurance fraud related to the CCBC repair work. These charges were later dismissed.

In 2016, Loven sued Church Mutual and one of its adjusters.

She accused the defendants of intentionally interfering with her "prospective business opportunity/economic advantage." In other words, she argued Church Mutual retaliated against her by telling the Department about the alleged 2012 overcharges. This in turn caused the Department to deny her an adjuster's license.

The defendants moved to dismiss Loven's lawsuit.

Under Oklahoma law, an insurer and its employees are immune from suit arising from statements made in the course of an insurance fraud investigation. Loven replied this immunity did not apply to her application to become a public adjuster.

The trial court agreed the defendants were immune and dismissed the case.

The Supreme Court later agreed to consider whether Loven's specific allegations of intentional interference required proof of "bad faith." The Court said that it did. The justices explained that civil immunity protected Church Mutual "as long as they, themselves, [did] not act … in bad faith." Since Loven never offered any evidence of bad faith, the trial court was correct to dismiss her lawsuit.

Oklahoma insurance bad faith attorney Tony Gould said the Supreme Court's decision does not mark a dramatic departure from existing law.

"Bad faith requires proof of malice or reckless disregard for the truth. In this case, an insurance company provided information in response to an existing state investigation. There was no suggestion the information provided was false or misleading. The fact this information proved harmful to the subject of the investigation did not, in the court's view, make this a case of bad faith."

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-3.htm

All Insurance Companies Have A “Duty Of Good Faith” Under Oklahoma Law.

Oklahoma City, OK -- (ReleaseWire) -- 10/23/2019 -- An insurer faces tort liability if they fail to investigate, negotiate, defend, or settle a claim in bad faith. At the same time, judges will not assume an insurer acted in bad faith absent compelling evidence to the contrary. On September 27, 2019, a federal judge dismissed a bad faith claim against Shelter Mutual Insurance Company. Shelter insured Johanna Dabbs, a woman involved in an auto accident that occurred in Texas. Dabbs ran a red light, clipped another vehicle, and collided with a third vehicle. Three individuals sustained injuries as a result.

An Attorney Representing Two Of The Victims Demanded Shelter Settle For The Maximum Limit Of Dabbs' Policy, Which Was $30,000.

The attorney placed a five-day time limit on the demand. Shelter said it needed more time to investigate. Specifically, a Shelter adjuster wanted access to the victims' medical records. Shelter nevertheless decided to accept the $30,000 offer–three days after the attorney's deadline. The attorney refused to accept. In a subsequent personal injury lawsuit, one of the victims obtained a $700,000 civil judgment against Dabbs. This prompted Dabbs to sue Shelter for breach of contract and bad faith. Chief U.S. District Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti of Oklahoma City said the breach of contract claim could proceed to a jury trial. But he dismissed the bad faith claim. The judge said Dabbs provided "no evidence that could give rise to a reasonable inference that [Shelter] acted tortiously in bad faith.

Under Oklahoma Law, Which Applied To The Policy, Dabbs Needed To Show Some "Reckless Conduct" On Shelter's Part.

DiGuisti noted that Shelter "took immediate action after the accident" to contact the injured victims. The insurer also acted on the advice of counsel and attempted to settle. And when Dabbs was sued, Shelter retained counsel on her behalf. Under these circumstances, DiGuisti said this was not a case of bad faith. Oklahoma City bad faith insurance attorney Tony Gould said this case illustrates the need for obtaining proper legal advice following an accident. "Shelter acted on the advice of a Texas attorney, even though Oklahoma law governed the policy. This led Shelter to make some critical errors in handling its policyholder's claim. And although the judge said this did not add up to bad faith, Shelter still faces a trial for breach of contract."

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-3.htm

Recently, a jury based in Tarrant County, Texas awarded a fracking company more than $5 million in damages in a bad faith insurance claim.

Oklahoma City, OK -- (ReleaseWire) -- 09/12/2019 -- In Compass Well Services, LLC v. Great American Insurance Company of New York, the jury determined that the insurance company engaged in unfair settlement practices when handling an equipment damage claim. 

 A Contractor Error Caused Significant Equipment Damage

The underlying incident that was at dispute in this case occurred in 2013. It was at that time that an outside contractor made a serious error at a worksite. Specifically, a contractor improperly closed a valve causing a significant pressure buildup that damaged a large amount of equipment and led to a three-day cessation of all operations. Compass Well Services suffered considerable financial losses as a result of the pressure buildup. Soon after, the company filed a $1.5 million claim against its insurance policy — which was offered by Great American Insurance company — seeking coverage for the cost to repair and replace the affected equipment.  

Great American Insurance Company Denied Coverage

After reviewing the claim. Great American Insurance Company denied coverage. Specifically, the insurance company stated that Compass Well Services improperly disposed of the damaged equipment before a full investigation could be conducted. Even after the fracking company produced supplemental information, the insurance company declined to reconsider its decision. 

Insurers Must Use Good Faith Settlement Practices

Eventually, the insurance dispute went to a jury trial. After assessing all testimony and evidence, the jury determined that the Great American Insurance Company failed to use good faith settlement practices. As explained by the Oklahoma City bad faith insurance claims attorneys at Brown & Gould, PLLC, "Insurance companies have a legal duty to handle claims in a good faith manner. Among other things, this duty requires insurers to conduct a full and fair investigation, to affirm or reject the claim within a reasonable time frame, and attempt to reach a prompt and fair settlement when liability is clear."

Bad Faith Damages Were Awarded

Bad faith insurance claims are brought under state law. In most jurisdictions, including in Oklahoma and Texas, policyholders are entitled to seek additional compensation if their claim is deemed to have been denied or underpaid in bad faith. Under Section 541.152 of the Texas Insurance Code, plaintiffs in a bad faith claims may recover compensation for the full value of their covered losses, treble bad faith damages, and attorneys' fees. In this case, Compass Well Services was awarded $2 million in bad faith damages and more than $950,000 in court costs and attorneys' fees. 

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-3.htm

On August 28, 2019, a federal judge in Oklahoma ruled a bad faith lawsuit against CSAA General Insurance Company (CSAA) could proceed to a jury trial.

Oklahoma City, OK -- (ReleaseWire) -- 09/11/2019 -- The plaintiff in this case, Daniels v. CSAA General Insurance Company, accused the insurer of failing to properly settle her claim for benefits following a December 2017 auto accident. The plaintiff, Tammy Fessenden, was injured in a hit-and-run accident caused by an unidentified vehicle. At the time, Ms. Fessenden was a passenger in a vehicle driven by Tracey Daniels. Ms. Daniels held an auto insurance policy on her vehicle from CSAA. This policy included $250,000 of uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) coverage.

Ms. Fessenden submitted a demand letter seeking the full $250,000 in benefits. A CSAA adjuster responded by offering to settle with Ms. Fessenden for just $5,000. CSAA previously paid $25,000 under Ms. Daniels' payments coverage to pay Ms. Fessenden's medical bills. The $5,000 UM settlement was based on the adjuster's valuation of Ms. Fessenden's claim for "pain and suffering."

In response to the low offer, Ms. Fessenden sued CSAA in Oklahoma state court. CSAA removed the case to federal court. It then asked for summary judgment on Ms. Fessenden's bad faith claim. U.S. District Judge David L. Russell denied CSAA's motion. He noted CSAA had not paid all of Ms. Fessenden's medical bills. She exhausted the $25,000 limit of Ms. Daniels' medical coverage. But this still left about $2,700 in uncovered medical bills. Yet CSAA "simply ignored" this when making its $5,000 UM settlement offer.

Judge Russell said there was no explanation for this. And if the $5,000 offer was meant to cover both the unpaid medical bills and Ms. Fesssenden's pain and suffering, that was also problematic. The adjuster said these "non-economic damages" were worth between $5,000 and $8,000. But CSAA had not explained why its offer was at the low end of even this scale.

Oklahoma City insurance bad faith attorney Tony Gould said it was not uncommon for insurance companies to undervalue an accident victim's pain and suffering. "Non-economic damages, by their nature, are difficult to precisely quantify. This does not excuse an insurance company, however, from making a good faith offer to settle a claim. All insurers have a duty under Oklahoma law to adequately investigate a claim before making a settlement offer."

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-3.htm

On May 30th, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States denied certiorari in the case of Comanche Nation of Oklahoma v. Ryan Zinke.

Oklahoma City, OK -- (ReleaseWire) -- 06/24/2019 -- The underlying dispute in this lawsuit involves the Department of the Interior's decision to approve a casino property in Terral, Oklahoma; in fact, a small town in the southern part of the state that is just miles from the Red River.

Complaint: Interior Department Violated Federal Law

The newly approved casino project is owned and controlled by the Chickasaw Nation. Notably, the competing Comanche Red River Hotel Casino in Devol, OK. And is within an hour of the newly approved property. As a result of the close proximity of the two competing commercial entities, the Comanche raised a complaint arguing that the competition is unfair and that the Interior Department approved the casino in violation of federal law.

Understanding the Oklahoma Exception

The key legal issue in this case is a federal rule that is commonly referred to as the 'Oklahoma exception' (25 U.S. Code § 2719). As explained by the Oklahoma City business litigation attorneys at Brown & Gould, PLLC,"Under federal law, American Indian tribes are generally prevented from opening up casino gaming operations on land that was obtained after October of 1988. However, the relevant statute contains a provision known as the 'the Oklahoma exception'. If land is located in the state of Oklahoma and within the bounds of the tribe's former reservation; the Interior Department has the authority to grant approval for a casino."

Judge: Terral, OK Casino Falls Within the Exception

In the initial 2017 ruling, a U.S. District Court judge for the Western District of Oklahoma determined that the proposed Terral, OK casino site; falls within the historical bounds of the Chickasaw's former reservation. As such, the judge ruled that the Oklahoma exception applies to this property and that the Interior Department had the authority to grant approval for the casino. On review, an appeals court affirmed that ruling. Consistent with standard practice; the Supreme Court did not offer specific reasoning as to why it decided not to review the case.

The Commercial Lawsuit Will Likely Be Dismissed

Since the Supreme Court has declined to review this case; the commercial litigation now goes back down to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. In a preliminary ruling regarding an injunction, the appeals court has already made an unfavorable decision for the Comanche Nation. Most observers expect that this lawsuit will now be dismissed by the Tenth Circuit.

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-3.htm

On April 5th, 2019, MacKenzie Bezos took to Twitter to announce that she had reached a divorce settlement with her husband Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos.

Oklahoma City, OK -- (ReleaseWire) -- 04/09/2019 -- According to reporting from the BBC, the value of the divorce settlement was at least $35 billion. All but certainly making this the most expensive divorce in United States history.

This case has brought some fresh attention to Oklahoma oil magnate Harold Hamm's controversial billion dollar divorce case. In early 2015, Mr. Hamm's divorce made national headlines after he sent his ex-wife Sue Ann Arnall a $975 million divorce check. Which she initially rejected.That $975 million check represented the full amount that Mr. Hamm's ex wife won though an Oklahoma County judge. She decided not to accept the payment on the advice of her legal counsel. This was on the basis that doing so would potentially hurt her ability to appeal the decision. Ms. Arnail believed that the $1 billion divorce payment was inequitable when considering the true value of Mr. Hamm's fortune — by some measures he was worth more than $15 billion. Though, there was considerable disagreement over his true net worth. Born in Lexington, OK, Mr. Hamm made his money in large part through the development of the shale oil of the Bakken. Eventually Ms. Arnail did cash the check. Soon after, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma dismissed her appeal.Dividing up assets in a high-end divorce can be deeply complex. As noted by the Oklahoma City property division attorneys at Brown & Gould, PLLC, "Oklahoma is an equitable distribution state. In Oklahoma, a couple's marital assets are split up in a fair manner. Of course, property cannot be equitably divided until identified and valued.

Business interests, real estate, and other high-end assets are frequently difficult to value."Even after settling the divorce, and giving up 25 percent of the couple's ownership stake in Amazon; Jeff Bezos will remain the richest man on the planet. Some financial analysts noted that the divorce settlement is widely seen as good news for Amazon shareholders. He escaped certain risks that may have come with a contested divorce.

Further, Mr. Bezos retained full voting power over Amazon in the divorce settlement. In fact, there is not expected to be any adverse impact for one of the world's largest companies.

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-3.htm

In Recent Weeks, Fresh Attention is Being Paid to One of the Most Important Financial Issues Affecting Single Parents in The United States: Unpaid Child Support.

Oklahoma City, OK -- (ReleaseWire) -- 03/29/2019 -- As noted in a recent report from CBS News, it's estimated that more than $10 billion in child support is currently going uncollected. The report draws its conclusions from data provided in a recent study from the United States Census Bureau.

Alarmingly, the study found that only 43.5 percent of single parents who receive ongoing child support payments are regularly getting the full amount owed. Also a significant number of custodial parents, 30 percent, receiving no child support at all.According to the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); Americans collectively owe $40 billion in child support each year. However, only about $30 billion of that is actually paid when due. Of course, that means that many custodial parents, and thus their children, are not receiving the financial support that they need. Missing out on child support payments can put a tremendous financial burden on a family. As explained by the Oklahoma City child support attorneys at Brown & Gould, PLLC,"Parents owed child support do have a number of different options available. The failure to pay child support is a violation of a court order.

Through the Oklahoma Department of Human Services; a custodial parent who is owed past due child support may be able to collect that money through garnishment of wages. Also by obtaining a lien on the other parent's property or bank account, or through the confiscation of a state or federal tax return. In addition, the intentional violation of a child support order could result in a persons arrest."Unpaid child support has long been a serious problem in the state of Oklahoma. With one of the highest divorce rates in the nation, many children in Oklahoma live primarily with one parent. In 2015, state Child Support Services (CSS) noted that there was an active arrest warrant out for more than 11,000 Oklahomans who failed to appear in court for their unpaid child support hearing. These violators were all offered amnesty from arrest if they voluntarily came forward to work with state officials to satisfy their child support obligations.

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-3.htm

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently released its latest data on marriage and divorce in the United States.

Oklahoma City, OK -- (ReleaseWire) -- 02/21/2019 -- According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), fewer couples got divorced in 2017 than in other recent years. This is consistent with a long-term trend: the national divorce rate has declined by approximately eighteen percent in the last decade. Though, the data does show some signs that the decline in the divorce rate is slowing.

For Oklahoma, the news is not quite so good. The divorce rate is still far above the national average. In 2017, there were 4.1 divorces per 1,000 people in Oklahoma. To put that number into the proper perspective, the state's divorce rate is more than 30 percent higher than the national average. Oklahoma has the second highest rate of divorce of any state in the nation. Only Nevada — which, of course, includes the city of Las Vegas, an outlier — has a higher incidence of divorce statewide.

Why are divorces more common in Oklahoma? There is no easy answer to this question. A number of different theories have been proposed by researchers. Some experts have pointed to the fact that couples in Oklahoma get married somewhat younger than they do in most other states. The average age that people get married at in Oklahoma is approximately 26 — only four states have a younger average age of marriage.

Oklahoma's relatively high rate of divorce is of concern to public health officials. Divorce has been associated with adverse outcomes — at least in the short-term. As explained by the Oklahoma City divorce attorneys at Brown & Gould, PLLC, "While getting a divorce is the right decision for some couples, going through one is always challenging. Beyond the strong emotional impact that a separation can have on the entire family, there are a number of complex legal and logistical issues that must be resolved. Divorcing couples must be able to find security and achieve stability."

There is some good news for Oklahoma: the state's divorce rate has been falling dramatically in recent decades. Despite still having one of the highest divorce rates in the nation, divorce is down by more than than 50 percent since 1990. In fact, the divorce rate in Oklahoma is dropping faster than it is many other states, suggesting that Oklahoma may not be one of the leaders in divorce for much longer.

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-3.htm