Johnson v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 14 January 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 36375,36375 |
| Parties | H. Blanche JOHNSON, Respondent, v. J. Arnold JOHNSON, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The evidence sustains the findings of the trial court that defendant was guilty of fraud in inducing plaintiff to enter into a stipulation of property settlement in a divorce action.
2. Fraudulently procured judgments may be set aside either by motion or in an independent action.
3. The facts proved to sustain the charges of fraud were clearly extrinsic. The distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic fraud has been pretty much done away with in this state.
4. Where a party below makes no request for additional findings, and takes no appeal here, there is clearly nothing before this court.
L. H. Dow and Thorwald Hansen, Duluth, for appellant.
Charles V. McCoy and Roger F. Noreen, Duluth, for respondent.
MAGNEY, Commissioner.
Plaintiff brought an independent action under M.S.A. § 548.14 to set aside the property division provisions of a divorce decree, alleging fraud. She prevailed. Defendant appeals from the order denying his motion for a new trial.
1. The parties were married May 26, 1926. Defendant here brought an action for divorce against the plaintiff. Judgment and decree in his favor was entered on February 21, 1947. Shortly before the trial of the divorce action, which was held on February 21, 1947, the parties entered into a stipulation for a full settlement of all their property rights, alimony, support money, and custody of the minor children of the parties. Upon the trial of said action, the only evidence offered and received was that offered by plaintiff therein in support of his claimed right to a divorce. The court found in his favor and incorporated in its findings the terms of the stipulation. A judgment and decree was thereupon duly entered.
The summons and complaint in the divorce action was served in March 1946. During practically the entire period of the pendency of said action negotiations were carried on by and between the parties and their respective counsel concerning the property rights of the parties and other matters. In the course of said negotiations the plaintiff therein, whom we will hereafter refer to as Johnson, made certain statements and representations as to property owned by him and the value thereof, which purported to be a true and full disclosure of all property owned by him and the full and true value thereof. The values according to his representations totaled approximately $65,000.
Among the statements and representations so made by Johnson was the statement and representation that his equity in the real property described as the Gershgol building was $6,000. The court in this action found that this representation was false and known by him to be false when he made it and that said equity at that time was worth approximately $25,000. The court also found that Johnson falsely and fraudulently represented that the value of the assets of the jewelry business in which he was then engaged, and the past income therefrom, were substantially less than they were in fact. The court also found that Johnson fraudulently and intentionally failed to disclose the ownership of at least $17,000 in cash, which he then owned and possessed and which he invested on July 2, 1946, in the Viche Loan Company, a partnership consisting of himself and one George L. Viche. The court found that all of said representations and statements were false and fraudulent, known by Johnson to be such, and made to plaintiff herein and her attorney with the intent and for the purpose of deceiving plaintiff, thus inducing her, relying upon said representations, to enter into said stipulation. The court also found that in entering into the stipulation the parties did not understand that defendant in the divorce action was to receive one-third of all the property owned by the parties either jointly or separately, although the amount agreed upon approximated one-third.
The court ordered that the divorce judgment be reopened and the action retried as to what property and payments should be awarded to defendant in that action.
We shall not detail the testimony relative to the claimed fraud in connection with Johnson's equity in the Gershgol building nor that relative to the value of the jewelry business and its past income. Suffice it to say that the evidence clearly supports the findings on these two items. However, we will detail the facts as to what we might call the $17,000 cash concealment, because it demonstrates Johnson's attitude, intentions, and purposes.
On June 26, 1946, and of course during the time the divorce action was pending, Johnson entered into a partnership agreement with one George L. Viche to operate a small loan business, the license, however, to be solely in the name of Viche. The partnership agreement was prepared by Leo Burak, a local attorney, acting for both parties. The names of the parties were not typed out in the instrument but were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kiesow v. Kiesow, 39385
...116 N.W.2d 545; 6 Dunnell, Dig. (3 ed.) § 2805.4 Haskell v. Haskell, 119 Minn. 484, 138 N.W. 787.5 See, for instance, Johnson v. Johnson, 243 Minn. 403, 68 N.W.2d 398.6 For circumstances justifying change in alimony, see Annotation, 18 A.L.R.2d 13.7 It is generally held that, where the cost......
-
Kaiser v. Kaiser, s. 42273
...had no basis in law for modifying the property settlement. See, Kiesow v. Kiesow, 270 Minn. 374, 133 N.W.2d 652; Johnson v. Johnson, 243 Minn. 403, 68 N.W.2d 398; Hafner v. Hafner, 237 Minn. 424, 54 N.W.2d 854. See, also, Clark, Domestic Relations, § 2. The parts of the trial court's order ......
-
Builders Dev. & Fin., Inc. v. Vern Reynolds Constr. Co.
...court or defrauds an opposing party by preventing the opposing party from presenting his case. Id.; see also Johnson v. Johnson, 243 Minn. 403, 407, 68 N.W.2d 398, 400 (1955) (recognizing Minnesota law eliminated substantive distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic fraud). Concealing a m......
-
Johnson v. Johnson
...and property to be awarded to the wife. Upon appeal to this court in the fraud action, the trial court was affirmed. Johnson v. Johnson, 243 Minn. 403, 68 N.W.2d 398. During the pretrial negotiations in the original divorce action in 1947, plaintiff represented to the defendant and her atto......