Hough v. Hough
| Decision Date | 25 April 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 67332,67332 |
| Parties | Patricia Kathleen HOUGH, Appellee, v. George F. HOUGH, Jr., Appellant. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS, DIVISION NO. 2
Trial court dismissed husband's Motion to Set Aside Divorce Decree for failure to set forth or allege any statutory grounds for vacation or modification of district court judgment. Court of Appeals ordered district court to confirm husband's separate ownership of certain property.
CERTIORARI GRANTED; COURT OF APPEALS' OPINION VACATED; APPLICATION FOR VACATION OF TRIAL COURT'S JUDGMENT DENIED.
Lewis B. Ambler, Bartlesville, for appellee.
William J. Dale, Bartlesville, for appellant.
Certiorari is granted to review an unpublished decision of the Court of Appeals, Tulsa Division, which overturned a portion of a divorce decree entered by the District Court of Nowata County, John G. Lanning, Judge.
Judgment in this divorce case was entered on June 4, 1986. On July 17, 1986, defendant-appellant (husband) filed a Motion to Set Aside Divorce Decree, asking the trial court to set aside the judgment because it was "not in accordance with the Case laws of the State of Oklahoma and that the Defendants [sic] lawful rights have not been fully protected in this matter." The plaintiff-appellee (wife) moved to dismiss husband's motion for failure to set forth or allege any of the statutory grounds which allow a district court to vacate or modify its own judgments, see Okla.Stat. tit. 12, § 1031 (1981), and for not filing his motion within ten days after the verdict was rendered, see id. at § 653. The trial court sustained wife's motion and dismissed husband's Motion to Set Aside Divorce Decree. Husband appealed.
Although the appeal raised a strictly procedural question, the Court of Appeals, without a transcript of the trial court's decision, determined that the portion of the decree which awarded wife property owned by husband before marriage was void. The district court was ordered to confirm the husband's separate ownership of the property because nothing in the decree indicated "evidence of a legal modification of ownership wrought by the marriage or otherwise." This holding was erroneous.
A void judgment may be attacked at any time and may be vacated by either the trial or appellate court. For a judgment to be void "it must appear on the face of the judgment roll or record, that the court rendering the judgment lacked (1) jurisdiction over the parties, (2) jurisdiction over the subject matter, or (3) jurisdictional power to render the particular judgment rendered." Scoufos v. Fuller, 280 P.2d 720, 723 (Okla.1954). No extrinsic evidence of the lack of jurisdiction is permitted. Id.
The Court of appeals concluded the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by failing to follow the statutory command that "[w]hen a divorce is granted, ... [t]he court shall enter its decree confirming in each spouse the property owned by him or her before marriage." Okla. stat. tit. 12, § 1278 (1981). This conclusion was based on the fact that the divorce decree did not mention whether anything "occurred during the marriage to alter or divest [title in the husband]." The Court of Appeals assumed that because no mention was made...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Messenger v. Messenger
...Richfield Co., supra note 20 at 260 n. 11; Capitol Federal Savings Bank v. Bewley, Okl., 795 P.2d 1051, 1054 (1990); Hough v. Hough, Okl., 772 P.2d 920, 921 (1989); Mayhue v. Mayhue, supra note 20 at 893 n. 8; Scoufos v. Fuller, supra note 20 at 723; State ex rel Commissioners of Land Offic......
-
US Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. STATE, OKLAHOMA TAX COM'N
...matter or (c) to pronounce the contested decision that was rendered. Estate of Mouse, 1993 OK 157, ¶ 9, 864 P.2d 1284, 1286; Hough v. Hough, 1989 OK 65, ¶ 4, 772 P.2d 920, 921; Chamberlin v. Chamberlin, 1986 OK 30, ¶ 8, 720 P.2d 721, 725 n. 15; Mayhue v. Mayhue, 1985 OK 68, ¶ 10, 706 P.2d 8......
-
Shamblin v. Beasley
...affected from the legal consequences of a resale tax deed. See Scoufos v. Fuller, 1954 OK 363, 280 P.2d 720, 723; Hough v. Hough, 1989 OK 65, 772 P.2d 920, 921. 19 The pertinent terms of 12 O.S.1991 § 1031 "The district court shall have power to vacate or modify its own judgments or orders ......
-
Booth v. McKnight
...note 20, ¶ 16, at 723. 23. Read v. Read, 2001 OK 87, ¶ 14, 57 P.3d 561, 565; Halliburton, supra note 19, ¶ 10 n. 11, at 1249 n. 11; Hough v. Hough, 1989 OK 65, ¶ 4, 772 P.2d 920, 921; Scoufos, supra note 20, ¶ 16, at 24. This court is not called upon to review here the Craig County probate ......