Brenda Sasnett and Luther Gregory Cummings were married on January 16, 1985. Cummings began his employment as an Oklahoma firefighter in September 1985, making him eligible for retirement in 2005. They remained married until April 9, 2010. In the divorce decree, Sasnett was awarded 50% of the benefits attributable to Cummings’ participation in the Oklahoma Firefighter Plan A retirement program from the date of marriage through the date of filing the petition in 2009. The decree specifically awarded Cummings his Oklahoma Firefighter retirement account, subject to Sasnett’s award of 50% of the benefit attributable to his participation in the retirement program during the specified period. The divorce decree stated that no share of Plan B was awarded to Sasnett, because Cummings testified that he did not participate in Plan B.
In April 2020, Cummings retired and elected to participate in the Plan B retirement program. He had the option of backdating his election of Plan B to May 1, 2015. When he elected this option, the monthly pension benefit was calculated on the earlier attained credited service and on the final average of his salary on the drop-back date. His Plan B account was credited with an amount equal to the “deferred benefit balance,” including the monthly retirement benefits that would have been payable had he elected to cease employment on the “back drop election date” and received traditional service retirement from the “back drop election date” to the termination date. In 2021, Sasnett sought to enforce the divorce decree, asserting that a portion of the Plan B benefits belonged to her. She presented evidence that Cummings transferred approximately $118,000 owed to her per decree, from his Plan A account to fund his Plan B account. She did not claim any of the additional contributions made to the Plan B account by Cummings or his employer.
The district ruled in favor of Sasnett, directing Cummings to pay her the pension funds awarded to her in the divorce decree that he used to fund his deferred option account, plus interest. Cummings appealed, and the Court of Civil Appeals reversed the district court’s decision. Sasnett then appealed. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma vacated the Court of Civil Appeals’ opinion and affirmed the district court’s judgment.
The Supreme Court held that Sasnett’s request for a portion of the pension benefits deposited in the DROP account was not an impermissible attempt to modify the divorce decree. The Court reasoned that Sasnett was not seeking to alter the property division in the divorce decree, but instead to compel Cummings to satisfy the previously adjudicated marital property division obligation.
The Court further held that Sasnett did not waive her right to her marital portion of the pension benefits that were deposited in the deferred option account. The Court acknowledged that the divorce decree specifically stated that no share of Plan B was awarded to the wife because the husband testified that he does not participate in Plan B. However, the Court emphasized that the divorce decree did not contemplate a decision by the husband to participate in Plan B and the decree was silent as to the distribution of Plan B benefits if elected in the future.
“Sasnett acquired a property right to Cummings’ Plan A retirement account once the district court entered the divorce decree. Plan B is not a separate retirement program than Plan A. Rather, it is an alternative option in the firefighters’ pension program made available when Oklahoma firefighters have vested and are eligible for retirement. The pension benefits do not lose their character as vested marital benefits simply because they are moved to a new Plan B account. And Cummings cannot unilaterally change the nature of the benefits, creating a new post-divorce asset that was not subject to distribution in the divorce.” The Court found “no basis in equity or property law to allow such a conversion of Sasnett’s marital property,” and concluded that Sasnett was entitled to 50% of Cummings’ firefighter pension benefits under the traditional retirement option that were deposited into his account under the deferred retirement option that he elected upon retirement. Cummings’ election at retirement to receive firefighter pension benefits under the deferred option did not affect what was owed to Sasnett under the divorce decree.
Finally, the Supreme Court held that Sasnett was entitled to the interest earned on her portion of the pension benefits. The Court stated that “Oklahoma law allows a member who elects to participate in Plan B to receive cost of living increases and interest.”
Cummings v. Sasnett, 2025 OK 7 (Okla. 2025).