Crofts v. Crofts, 11165
| Decision Date | 27 September 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 11165,11165 |
| Citation | 21 Utah 2d 332,445 P.2d 701 |
| Parties | d 332 Mary Ireta CROFTS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Josiah Hoyt CROFTS, Defendant and Respondent. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Mattsson & Jackson, Richfield, for appellant.
Ken Chamberlain, of Olsen & Chamberlain, Richfield, for respondent.
On November 5, 1962, the appellant, as plaintiff below, was awarded a decree of divorce from the respondent. There was neither a motion for a new trial or to amend the judgment ever filed, nor was there an appeal taken. On August 23, 1966, over three years after the divorce became final, the plaintiff filed a 'Petition for Interpretation of Decree of Divorce and to have Defendant Render an Accounting.' The matter was thereafter brought before the court, and an interpretation was made by the judge as to the language used in the original decree. The plaintiff, being dissatisfied with what the court said the original decree meant, filed a motion to vacate and set aside the order as made. This motion was argued to the court, and a hearing was had on the accounting phase of the original motion. Witnesses were called and exhibits received into evidence. An 'Amended Decision' of the court was filed, and thereafter findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a document denominated 'Declaratory Judgment' were filed.
Insofar as the accounting between the parties is concerned the evidence supports the findings made, and we should not disturb them because of the advantaged position of the trial judge in weighing the testimony which he heard.
We do not think the appellant needs to nor can she appeal from the so-called declaratory judgment insofar as it attempts to modify or clarify the original decree. It is not a final judgment and hence not appealable. It is nothing more than the statement of the judge as to how he proposes to interpret the judgment in the event of the occurrence of certain contingencies. It is not the prerogative of the court to give opinions on contingent questions not properly before him. In the first place, the contingency may never occur. In the second place, there may be a different judge on the bench if and when it does occur, and then it will be the language of the original decree which will determine the situation before the court. The so-called declaratory judgment insofar as it undertakes to modify or clarify the original decree is a nullity. There is at the present time nothing to call forth the opinion of the judge as expressed therein.
The reason why there cannot be a declaratory judgment upon a judgment is twofold:
First, it is not included within the terms of the statute permitting declaratory judgments. Section 78--33--2, U.C.A.1953, reads as follows:
Any person interested under a deed, will or written contract, or whose rights, status or other legal relations are affected by a statute, municipal ordinance, contract or franchise, may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument, statute, ordinance, contract or franchise and obtain a declaration of rights, status or other legal relations thereunder. (Emphasis added.)
Second, the finality of a judgment must be respected in order to insure the rights of parties. Section 30--3--5, U.C.A.1953, provides:
* * * Such subsequent changes or new orders may be made by the court with respect to the disposal of the children or the distribution of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Edmisten v. Tucker
...judgment entered by a court of competent jurisdiction. See, e.g., Flanary v. Rowlett, 612 S.W.2d 47 (Mo.App.1981); Crofts v. Crofts, 21 Utah 2d 332, 445 P.2d 701 (1968); Mills v. Mills, 512 P.2d 143 (Okla.1973); Speaker v. Lawler, 463 S.W.2d 741 (Tex.Civ.App.1971); Glassford v. Glassford, 7......
-
First Union Nat. Bank v. Pictet Overseas Trust
...236 Neb. 26, 458 N.W.2d 466, 471 (1990); see also Neujahr v. Neujahr, 223 Neb. 722, 393 N.W.2d 47, 49 (1986); Crofts v. Crofts, 21 Utah 2d 332, 445 P.2d 701, 702-03 (1968). The district court's introductory remarks in its Interest Rate Decision summarized its holding and said that First Uni......
-
St. Pierre v. Edmonds
...the decree must be made in the original action and allege changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a reopening. Crofts v. Crofts, 21 Utah 2d 332, 445 P.2d 701 (1968). The plaintiff in this action did not plead a change in circumstances and therefore was not entitled to have the decree mo......
-
Mills v. Mills
...one and therefore cannot be the subject of a declaratory judgment action.' The Supreme Court of the State of Utah in Crofts v. Crofts, 21 Utah 2d 332, 445 P.2d 701, held that there cannot be a declaratory judgment on a judgment, first because such an action was not within the terms of the U......