Ford v. Ford, 29526.
| Decision Date | 02 February 1945 |
| Docket Number | 29526. |
| Citation | 22 Wn.2d 303,155 P.2d 485 |
| Parties | FORD v. FORD. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 2.
Suit by Marion June Ford against Donald E. Ford for divorce. From an order denying defendant's petition to vacate an interlocutory order of divorce, he appeals.
Reversed with direction.
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; James T. Lawler, judge.
Alec Duff, of Seattle, for appellant.
Little Leader, LeSourd & Palmer, of Seattle, for respondent.
This is an appeal by defendant from an order denying his petition to vacate an interlocutory order of divorce, which was entered on his default.
Prior to the commencement of the action, the plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement settling their property rights. The court, however, declined to approve the agreement and decreed a division of the property of the parties much more favorable to plaintiff.
In this petition to set aside the interlocutory order, defendant charged that the court's action in this respect was induced by fraud perpetrated on the court by plaintiff at the trial. In denying the petition, the court found that the charge of fraud was not substantiated. Upon the record, we think this finding is not open to challenge for it is quite apparent that the court's action with respect to the division of the property was prompted by a suggestion from the divorce proctor and upon its own sense of responsibility under Rem.Rev.Stat. § 989.
Were the matter of fraud the sole issue presented by the record we should have no hesitancy in affirming the order denying the petition to vacate the interlocutory order.
While the interlocutory order is not now Before us for review, it bears on its face a provision which was beyond the power of the court to enter; and, because of that provision, we think the order should be vacated in so far as it affects the property rights of the parties. The provisions is as follows:
'It is further ordered and adjudged that the court hereby reserves for a period of six months the jurisdiction on its own motion to alter the provisions of the property settlement agreement * * *.'
The court's power over property rights of parties to a divorce action derives from Rem.Rev.Stat. § 988, which provides:
'If * * * the court determines that either party, or both, is entitled to a divorce an interlocutory order must be entered accordingly * * *; which order shall also make all...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
High v. High
...Cassutt v. Cassutt, 126 Wash. 17, 217 P. 35, Brown v. Brown, 192 Wash. 333, 73 P.2d 795, and Ford v. Ford, 22 Wash.2d [252 P.2d 275] 303, 155 P.2d 485, we are of the opinion that the trial court, in setting aside the default divorce decree as to property rights and ordering that either part......
-
White v. White
...interlocutory decree of divorce, praying for custody of the child and a division of the community property. This court said in Ford v. Ford, Wash., 155 P.2d 485: court's power over property rights of parties to a divorce action derives from Rem.Rev.Stat. (Sup.), § 988 (P.C. sec. 7507), whic......
-
In re Miller's Guardianship
...decree, the title to the community property vests in the former owners of the property as tenants in common.' In Ford v. Ford, 22 Wash.2d 303, 155 P.2d 485, interlocutory order provided: "It is further ordered and adjudged that the court hereby reserves for a period of six months the jurisd......
-
State ex rel. Gaupseth v. Superior Court for King County, 29840.
... ... Brown, 192 Wash ... 333, 73 P.2d 795, and very recently in Ford v. Ford, ... 22 Wash.2d 303, 155 P.2d 485. The statutory language is as ... follows: '* ... ...