Herring v. Graham

• Decision Date: 07 December 2018
• Docket Number: Case No. 116,184
• Citation: 432 P.3d 1064
• Parties: Angela HERRING, as Administrator for the Estate of Elizabeth A. Jones, Judgment Creditor/Appellant, v. Ricky GRAHAM, Judgment Debtor/Appellee, and Lisa Graham, Judgment Debtor.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma

432 P.3d 1064

Angela HERRING, as Administrator for the Estate of Elizabeth A. Jones, Judgment Creditor/Appellant,
v.
Ricky GRAHAM, Judgment Debtor/Appellee,
and
Lisa Graham, Judgment Debtor.

Case No. 116,184

Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 3.

FILED December 7, 2018
Mandate Issued: January 9, 2019

Samuel L. Stein, LAW OFFICES OF SAM STEIN, PLLC, Cherokee, Oklahoma, for Appellant,

Brendon S. Atkinson, GUNGOLL, JACKSON, BOX & DEVOLL, P.C., Enid, Oklahoma, for Appellee.

OPINION BY BRIAN JACK GOREE, VICE-CHIEF JUDGE:

I. FACTS

¶1 This is an appeal from an order of the district court granting a motion to vacate a foreign judgment from the Harper County, Kansas district court. The primary question in this appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion in vacating the Kansas judgment as facially void for lack of jurisdiction. The parties dispute the characterization of the Kansas court's exercise of jurisdiction.

¶2 Some background regarding the Kansas litigation is helpful in understanding this appeal. In the underlying Kansas proceeding, Ricky and Lisa Graham filed their Petition for Protection from Stalking against Elizabeth Jones.¹ In response, Jones filed her Answer and Counterclaims alleging breach of fiduciary duty as attorney in fact, fraud, and breach of contract. Later, Jones filed her Motion for Sanctions, including default judgment against the Grahams. The Kansas district court entered its Journal Entry Nunc Pro Tunc for default judgment and other sanctions against the Grahams.

¶3 After securing this relief, Angela Herring, Appellant, registered the Kansas foreign judgment pursuant to the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, 12 O.S. § 719 et seq. On August 19, 2014, Herring filed in the Alfalfa County, Oklahoma district court her Amended Foreign Judgment Registration Affidavit and attached the Kansas district court's Journal Entry Nunc Pro Tunc dated August 11, 2014 (Kansas Judgment). The Kansas Judgment provides in pertinent part:

5. As sanctions, the factual allegations of Elizabeth A. Jones's verified Answer to Petition for Protection from Stalking and Counterclaims are found to be true and correct, and default judgment is rendered thereon in favor of the Estate of Elizabeth A. Jones. Pursuant to this judgment, the Court orders:

a. the Estate is awarded damages for Plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty as attorney in fact, fraud, and, breach of contract, said damages to be liquidated by the Court at a subsequent hearing;

b. the August 12, 2004, Agreement between Elizabeth A. Jones ("Jones") and Plaintiff Rick Graham is rescinded due to material breach of contract and fraud;

c. the August 12, 2004, deeds of real property are found to be void ab initio due to fraud in the inducement and breach of fiduciary duty, those properties being more specifically described as:

i. SE/4 of Section 6, Township 35S, Range 8W of the 6th P.M., Harper County, Kansas;

ii. NE/4 of Section 7, Township 35S, Range 8W of the 6th P.M., Harper County, Kansas; and

iii. S/2 SE/4 of Section 33, Township 29N, Range 9W of the Indian Meridian Alfalfa County Oklahoma

¶4 In response to Herring's registration of the Kansas Judgment, Rick Graham, Appellee, filed his Motion to Vacate Foreign Judgment arguing that the Kansas court did not have jurisdiction to affect title to real property in Oklahoma, and therefore, the Kansas

432 P.3d 1067

Judgment was void on its face. The district court agreed and vacated the Kansas Judgment. Herring appealed.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶5 On review, the issue is whether the district court erred in vacating the Kansas Judgment as facially void due to the Kansas court's extraterritorial exercise of jurisdiction over real property in Oklahoma. We review the trial court's decision to vacate the Kansas Judgment for abuse of discretion. See Ferguson Enters., Inc. v. H. Webb Enters., Inc. , 2000 OK 78, ¶ 5, 13 P.3d 480, 482.

¶6 An appellate court's inquiry into a district court's decision to vacate a judgment focuses on the correctness of the trial court's response to the motion to vacate and not on the underlying judgment. Central Plastics Co. v. Barton, Indus. Inc ., 1991 OK 103, ¶ 2, 818 P.2d 900. "An abuse of discretion occurs when a court bases its decision on an erroneous conclusion of law or where there is no rational basis in evidence for the ruling." Christian v. Gray , 2003 OK 10, ¶ 43, 65 P.3d 591. A showing of a trial court's abuse of discretion is different when the court's decision is founded on an erroneous legal conclusion than when founded on an erroneous factual finding. When a court reviews a trial court's ruling for abuse of discretion on a legal conclusion, the effective standard of review is de novo . Id. A stronger showing of abuse of discretion is required when a trial court vacates a judgment than when it refuses to vacate a judgment. Midkiff v. Luckey , 1966 OK 49, ¶ 6, 412 P.2d 175, 176-77. "To reverse on the grounds of abuse of discretion, the appellate court must find that the trial judge made a clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment, against reason and evidence." Okla. Turnpike Auth. v. Asher , 1993 OK 136, ¶ 7, 863 P.2d 1205 citing Abel v. Tisdale , 1980 OK 161, ¶ 20, 619 P.2d 608.

III. ANALYSIS

A. Foreign Judgment Registration and Vacation Procedure

¶7 The Kansas Judgment registered in Oklahoma must be valid to receive full faith and credit under the law. See Sharp v. Sharp, L.R.A. , 1916 OK 736, ¶ 16, 65 Okla. 76, 166 P. 175. The Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, 12 O.S. § 719 et seq. , governs the enforcement in Oklahoma of a sister state's judgment. RKO Pictures, Inc. v. Barkley , 1992 OK CIV APP 18, ¶ 11, 838 P.2d 518. Oklahoma gives full faith and credit to valid judgments of sister states. 12 O.S. § 720. Validity requires that the court meet all the jurisdictional requirements: jurisdiction of the parties, jurisdiction of the subject matter, and jurisdiction to render the particular judgment. Sharp , ¶ 6. A judgment rendered without jurisdiction is void. Id.

¶8 A sister state's judgment registered in Oklahoma pursuant to 12 O.S. § 721, is treated as any other Oklahoma district court judgment and is "subject to the same procedures ... and proceedings for ... vacating." 12 O.S. § 721.

¶9 In Oklahoma, a facially void judgment may be vacated at any time. 12 O.S. § 1038. A judgment is facially void when the judgment roll² reveals a lack of any of the requisite jurisdictional requirements. Booth v. McKnight , 2003 OK 49, ¶ 11, 70 P.3d 855, 859-60.³ A facially void judgment is subject to collateral attack by any interested party at any time wherever venue may be laid. Id.

B. Jurisdictional Inquiry

¶10 While the Oklahoma Court may not inquire into the merits of the Kansas Judgment, it does have the ability to review its exercise of jurisdiction. See Sharp , ¶ 6 citing

432 P.3d 1068

Elliott v. Piersol, 26 U.S. (1 Pet.) 328, 7 L.Ed. 164 (1828).

¶11 The parties disagree about the characterization of the Kansas court's jurisdiction in the underlying proceeding. Appellee argues the Oklahoma district court was correct in voiding the judgment because the Kansas court entered judgment in rem by finding the deed to Oklahoma real property void. Appellant, on the other hand, argues the Kansas court exercised in personam jurisdiction over the parties when it found the deed concerning Oklahoma real property void ab initio . Appellant further urges it was error for the Oklahoma district court to vacate a properly registered foreign judgment as void on its face when the Oklahoma district court did not have the entire judgment roll for review.

¶12 The district court reviewed Appellee's Motion to Vacate Foreign Judgment and the parties' respective brief in support of the motion and response to conclude that the "subject of the domesticated Foreign Judgment is real property [in Oklahoma] ... which the Kansas Court ... had no jurisdiction."

¶13 The district court reviewed the Kansas judgment and found it void on its face. The Kansas Judgment awards Appellant "damages for Plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty as attorney in fact, fraud, and, breach of contract", rescinds "the August 12, 2004 Agreement between Elizabeth A. Jones and Plaintiff Rick Graham", and finds "the August 12, 2004 deeds to real property ... void ab initio due to fraud in the inducement and breach of fiduciary duty." The deed to real property includes the "S/2 SE/4 of Section 33, Township 29N, Range 9W of the Indian Meridian, Alfalfa County, Oklahoma."

¶14 While a Kansas court may have jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of certain claims, a Kansas court lacks authority to issue a judgment in rem with regard to Oklahoma property. See Sharp , ¶ 6.⁴ A judgment in rem has the effect of establishing title to land. Sharp , ¶¶ 8-10.⁵

It is characteristic of a judgment in rem that it operates on a thing or status rather than against the person, and binds all persons to the extent of their interest in the thing whether or not they were parties to the proceedings, and that it operates only on the property which is the subject of the litigation.

Arvest Bank v. SpiritBank, N.A. , 2008 OK CIV APP 55, ¶ 20, 191 P.3d 1228.

¶15 A court in equity with in...