Beasley v. Beasley

• Decision Date: 27 June 1977
• Docket Number: Nos. KCD,s. KCD
• Citation: 553 S.W.2d 541
• Parties: Jack Charles BEASLEY, Appellant, v. Shannon Marie Lattner BEASLEY, Respondent. 28695 and 28716.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 541

553 S.W.2d 541

Jack Charles BEASLEY, Appellant, v. Shannon Marie Lattner BEASLEY, Respondent.

Nos. KCD 28695 and 28716.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Kansas City District.

June 27, 1977.

James S. Cottingham, Independence, for appellant.

Lloyd S. Hellman, Kansas City, for respondent.

Before SHANGLER, P. J., and WELBORN and HIGGINS, Special Judges.

ANDREW JACKSON HIGGINS, Special Judge.

Appeal from adverse judgment in action to set aside default divorce decree. The dispositive question is whether the decree was shown to have been a fraud on the court. Affirmed.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Mrs. Beasley requested, and the court filed "a brief opinion containing a statement of the grounds for its decision" which includes its findings of fact and conclusions of law, as provided in Rule 73.01.1(b), V.A.M.R.:

"This matter arise(s) out of an alleged commonlaw marriage between the parties during the year of 1969. Presently pending before the Court is a suit in equity to set aside the judgment entry entered by this Court on the 7th of December, 1970. The allegation is made by petitioner Jack Beasley that there was no marriage between the parties in 1969 or at any other time. * * * "Shannon Beasley filed a Petition for Divorce in this court against Jack Beasley * * * wherein she alleged in paragraph two of her sworn petition that she and Jack Beasley entered into a commonlaw marriage relationship in Wyandotte County, Kansas during (and through) the months of July and August, 1969. Born of that relationship was one child named Kelly Lynn Beasley. Mrs. Beasley prayed for a divorce, custody of the minor child, child support, alimony and attorney fees. The Petition for Divorce was served on Jack Beasley on the 23rd of October, 1970. Mrs. Beasley appeared in court with her attorney, who is now deceased. She offered testimony, under oath, to the effect that she and Jack Beasley entered into a commonlaw marriage arrangement in the state of Kansas and that born of their marriage relationship was one child. This evidence was presented to the Court on the 7th of December, 1970 and the judge entered an order divorcing the parties, awarding custody of the minor child to the mother, requiring the father to pay $25.00 per week and an award of alimony of $1.00 per month and attorney fees of $300.00. There was a general execution issued on the judgment for child support on the 4th of February, 1971, but some confusion exists as to whether it was effective. The garnishment (on Mr. Beasley's employer, Muehlebach Hotel) was released on the 8th of February.

"Considerable testimony was introduced into evidence on January 27, 1976 and February 24, 1976 on petitioner Jack Beasley's motion to set aside that decree. It is the opinion of this Court that most all of that testimony was inadmissible. Basically, Mr. Beasley claims that there was no commonlaw marriage under the laws of the state of Kansas. Simply stated Mr. Beasley was afforded an opportunity to present that evidence in 1970 and he failed to do so. His alleged conversation with Mr. Henry, Mrs. Beasley's attorney in 1970, was inadmissible because in violation of the Dead Man's Statute. Nevertheless, whether admissible or not it does not excuse Mr. Beasley from allowing the matter to go by default. At least under his evidence he was aware of the divorce, award of custody and child support within three months after the entry of the decree. He did nothing until some five (5) years after the judgment was entered and only then when he was threatened by criminal action in the state of Kansas for failure to support the minor child. The evidence on laches that was presented by the respondent is persuasive and a clear example of the lapse of time working to the detriment and prejudice of one party. A good deal of evidence that would possibly be available to prove that there was a commonlaw marriage under the laws of Kansas is lost by the passage of time.

"Based upon the evidence now presented to this Court, it is not at all clear that there was a relationship sanctioned by the state of Kansas that would have allowed this Court to grant a divorce. In fact, the evidence preponderates in favor of facts tending to establish no commonlaw marriage. But many facts have been lost due to the passage of time and, further, and more significantly, Mr. Beasley was afforded the opportunity to present those facts and he didn't. At some point in time there must be some finality to the disputes between people. In this case it has occurred after five years have expired. This might not have been true while the court still retains jurisdiction in the thirty days following its judgment entry or even three months following the entry.

" * * * a Petition for Divorce was filed by Mrs. Beasley October 9, 1970, * * * it was sworn to, * * * it was shortly thereafter served personally on Mr. Beasley, * * * the judgment entry was made on the 7th of December, 1970 as hereinbefore described and * * * Mr. Beasley failed to respond at any time to the petition or the entry of a judgment against him for five years thereafter.

" * * * the petitioner is guilty of laches in failing to take any action on this judgment for over five years and further, * * * there is no 'extrinsic fraud' committed by respondent.

"Therefore, petitioner's petition to set aside the judgment entry of the 7th of December, 1970 between the same two parties in this court is denied and judgment entered in favor of the respondent and against the petitioner."

Appellant contends his petition to set aside the decree should be sustained, asserting that he showed: (A) Mrs. Beasley perpetrated a fraud on the court in the divorce proceedings by reason of false allegation of marriage in her summons, petition for divorce, and testimony; (B) she...