What Lawyers Need to Know About the Billion-Dollar Divorce

Headlines across the country proclaim “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 percent owner of publicly traded oil company Continental Resources Inc.) has garnered widespread attention due to the approximately $16 billion of assets at issue. Sue Ann Hamm’s award of only 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.

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.