Matlock v. Matlock, 40869

• Citation: 323 P.2d 646,182 Kan. 631
• Decision Date: 07 April 1958
• Docket Number: No. 40869,40869
• Parties: Gene D. MATLOCK, Appellant, v. Nina MATLOCK, Appellee.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Kansas

Page 646

323 P.2d 646

182 Kan. 631

Gene D. MATLOCK, Appellant, v. Nina MATLOCK, Appellee.

No. 40869.

Supreme Court of Kansas.

April 7, 1958.

Syllabus by the Court

1. The record examined in a divorce action, and held, the court did not err in awarding attorneys fees, accounting fees and a money judgment to the wife in lieu of all property rights and permanent alimony.

2. An appeal perfected only from 'decisions, findings, rulings and judgments' does not constitute an appeal from an order overruling a motion for new trial and under such a circumstance this court has no jurisdiction to review trial errors in the judgment.

3. An assignment of error to the effect that the trial court erred in rendering judgment amounts to nothing more than that the decision is wrong. It does not specify any error and presents no reviewable ruling to an appellate court.

4. A division of property and award of alimony made by the trial court will not be disturbed on appellate review unless it is clearly shown that there has been an abuse of discretion.

W. Jay Esco, Wichita, argued the cause, and D. G. Hamilton, Henry D. Edwards, Montell L. Dunn, Danford H. Smyth, Lloyd F. Cooper, Dale H. Cooper, and Ralph B. Foster, Wichita, were with him on the briefs, for appellant.

Robert E. Lee Walker, Wichita, argued the cause, and Ralph E. Gilchrist and Carl L. Buck, Wichita, were with him on the briefs, for appellee.

HALL, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment in a divorce action.

The plaintiff husband, appellant here, filed suit for divorce. The wife, appellee here, filed an answer and cross petition. A decree of divorce was granted to the wife on her cross petition. The court reserved its fuling on the matters of alimony and division of property.

Several weeks later the court rendered judgment as follows:

'* * * the Court now renders judgment in favor of the defendant Nina Matlock and against the plaintiff Gene D. Matlock as and for and in lieu of all property rights and permanent alimony in the sum of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00). That the Court now awards to counsel for the defendant, Gilchrist and Buck, attorneys fees in the sum of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), the same to be a a judgment against the plaintiff, Gene D. Matlock. The Court further renders judgment as and for fees for the accounting firm of Cory Webster & Lawrence in the sum of Two Hundred and Forty-Six Dollars ($246.00), the same to be a judgment against Gene D. Matlock.'

In the notice of appeal appellant appeals only from the 'decisions, findings, rulings and judgment of the district court'.

Appellant specifies as error that the judgment is contrary to the evidence and law; that the judgment of alimony and division of property is improper, unjust and inequitable; that the judgment 'in the sum of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) for and in lieu of all property rights and permanent alimony' is contrary to law. Appellant also specifies as error the amounts allowed as attorneys and accounting fees.

An appeal perfected only from 'decisions, findings, rulings and judgments' does not constitute an appeal from an order overruling a motion for new trial and under such circumstances this court has no jurisdiction to review the trial errors specified by the appellant. Curtis v. Kansas Bostwick Irrigation District, 182 Kan. 301, 320 P.2d 783, and the authorities cited therein.

Likewise an assignment of error to the effect that the trial court erred in rendering judgment amounts to nothing more than that the decision is wrong and presents nothing for appellate review. Hamilton v. Binger, 162 Kan. 415, 176 P.2d 553; Cimarron Co-Operative Equity Exchange v. Warner, 166 Kan. 190, 200 P.2d 283; Bisagno v. Lane, 168 Kan. 153, 211 P.2d 85; In re Estate of Young, 169 Kan. 20, 217 P.2d 269; Smith v. Kansas Transport Co., 172 Kan. 26, 238 P.2d 553; McIntyre v. Dickinson, 180 Kan. 710, 307 P.2d 1068; Hill v. Lake, 182 Kan. 127, 318 P.2d 1050; Curtis v. Kansas Bostwick Irrigation District, supra.

The only question before us is whether the court erred in rendering judgment in favor of the appellee 'in the...