Matthewson v. Hilton

• Decision Date: 21 January 1958
• Docket Number: No. 37835,37835
• Citation: 321 P.2d 396,1958 OK 6
• Parties: Dan MATTHEWSON, Plaintiff in Error, v. Stokley HILTON, Defendant in Error.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Page 396

321 P.2d 396

1958 OK 6

Dan MATTHEWSON, Plaintiff in Error, v. Stokley HILTON, Defendant in Error.

No. 37835.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Jan. 21, 1958.

Syllabus by the Court

1. 'Until discovery of the fraud,' as used in Tit. 12 O.S.1951 § 95(3), does not necessarily mean until the party complaining had actual notice of the fraud alleged to have been committed. Constructive notice is sufficient. Where public records required by law to be kept involve the transaction in hand and afford means of discovery of the fraud, they are constructive notice of the fraud and sufficient to start the statute.

2. Tit. 58 O.S.1951 § 632, imposes upon a county court acting in probate the mandatory duty of determining who are the beneficiaries, the part to which each is entitled, and the nature and extent of their interest in the estate; and in so doing it has jurisdiction to construe and interpret the will under which the property is distributed.

3. Decree of distribution of county court having jurisdiction of the settlement of a testatrix' estate, entered after due notice and hearing, is conclusive in the absence of fraud, mistake or collusion as to the rights of parties interested in the estate, to all portions of said estate thereby ordered, and capable of being, then distributed under the will, unless reversed or modified on appeal; and such decree is not subject to collateral attack.

Appeal from the District Court of Greer County; W. P. Keen, Judge.

Action to quiet title. Judgment for plaintiff; defendant appeals. Reversed.

Rainey, Flynn & Anderson, Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

Arnett & McDaniel, by Yonne P. McDaniel, Mangum, Thos. Boyers, Gallatin, Tenn., for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

This is an action instituted by the defendant in error herein to quiet title to certain described premises, and is in the nature of a collateral attack on a decree of distribution in the County Court of Greer County in which the property was distributed to plaintiff in error. Defendant in error's petition alleges that the decree of distribution attacked was obtained by fraud, and that it is void on the face of the judgment roll. Judgment in the trial court was for defendant in error, quieting title in him against plaintiff in error. Plaintiff in error appeals. The parties will be referred to hereinafter by their trial court designations of 'plaintiff' and 'defendant', respectively.

The property involved is that which constituted the estate of the defendant's deceased wife. Upon her death in December, 1938, her will was admitted to probate, and the decree of distribution here in question was entered in October, 1939. Plaintiff testified that during the probate proceedings he talked with the defendant, who was executor of the estate, concerning his claim to the property of the estate. The substance of this conversation, which plaintiff contends constitutes the fraud, is not material in our view of the matter at this time. In any event, the decree of distribution did not distribute the property as plaintiff construed the will, or in the manner he understood that defendant agreed it was to be distributed. Plaintiff testified he first learned of this alleged fraud in 1955 shortly before he instituted this action. We are of the opinion that the cause of action based on fraud is barred by the statute of limitations which the defendant asserted. Tit. 12 O.S.1951 § 95(3). When the decree of distribution was entered of record in the county court in 1939, constructive notice of any fraud practiced in obtaining the decree was imparted to plaintiff. This constructive notice was sufficient to establish the time from which the period of the statute must be computed, and this period has long since...