Miller v. Liberty Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Oklahoma City
| Decision Date | 07 April 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 40473,40473 |
| Citation | 391 P.2d 269 |
| Parties | Louise M. MILLER, formerly Louise M. Loomis, Plaintiff in Error, v. The LIBERTY NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY OF OKLAHOMA CITY, a National Banking Association, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Statute allowing amendment of pleadings in order to promote justice is remedial in purpose and should be liberally construed. 12 O.S.1961, Sec. 317.
2. The right to recover attorney's fees from one's opponent in litigation as a part of the costs thereof does not exist at common law. Such allowances in the absence of statute or some agreement expressly authorizing the same, cannot be sustained.
3. Title 42 O.S.1961, Sec. 176, provides, 'In an action brought to enforce any lien the party for whom judgment is rendered shall be entitled to recover a reasonable attorney's fee to be fixed by the court, which shall be taxed as costs in the action.' Thereunder no attorney's fee may be allowed the attorney for the defendant unless the final judgment be against the lien claim.
Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County; A. P. Van Meter, Judge.
Appeal by Louise M. Miller, formerly Loomis (defendant below) from an adverse judgment in favor of Liberty National Bank and Trust Company (plaintiff below) refusing to allow defendant an attorney fee for the benefit of her attorneys. Affirmed.
Carroll & Carroll, Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.
Crowe, Boxley, Dunlevy, Thweatt, Swinford & Johnson, Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.
This is an appeal by Louise M. Miller, formerly Loomis (defendant below), from an adverse judgment in favor of Liberty National Bank and Trust Company (plaintiff below), refusing to allow defendant an attorney fee for the benefit of her attorneys. The parties will be referred to by their trial court designation.
There is no conflict in the pertinent facts disclosed by the record. On November 30, 1961, plaintiff filed suit against defendant and M. E. Parsons and Grace F. Parsons to foreclose a real estate mortgage given by defendant to her co-defendants Parsons on March 5, 1958, for $6000, payable $75 per month. The petition alleged that the mortgage and the note it secured had been assigned to plaintiff by the Parsons as collateral for a loan and that it owned the note and mortgage and that any interest of the Parsons therein was junior to the rights of plaintiff therein. Plaintiff prayed judgment against defendant for $6000 and attorney fee and foreclosure and for a judgment decreeing the right of the Parsons junior to the title of plaintiff. The defendant filed an answer alleging she had made all payments required by the note and further that the note had been credited with a portion of the condemnation proceeds arising from a proceeding whereby a portion of the property had been taken for public purposes. Defendant prayed that the plaintiff be denied any recovery against defendant; that the true ownership of the note and mortgage be judicially determined so that defendant could make payments to the proper person; and for $1000 attorney fee.
The defendants Parsons answered admitting the assignment of defendant's note and mortgage to plaintiff and that plaintiff was the owner of the note and mortgage and alleging that the balance due thereon was about $2066.33.
Plaintiff thereupon filed an amendment to its petition in which it withdrew the allegations as to the amount due by defendant on the note, the alleged default in payment, the alleged right to foreclosure, and withdrew all allegations except as to quieting its title to the note and mortgage against defendant and the Parsons. Plaintiff also filed a second amendment to its petition reciting the trustee in the bankruptcy of M. E. Parsons had disclaimed any right or interest in said note and mortgage. Defendant moved to strike these amendments on the ground that they were a substantial departure from the original petition and prejudicial to defendant, but restated her right to a judicial determination as to the true ownership of the note and mortgage. Defendant also filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. These motions were overruled by the trial court.
The trial of the matter to the court resulted in a judgment that plaintiff was the owner of the note and mortgage and a finding as to the balance to be paid and directing defendant to make the payments to plaintiff. It was further held that defendant had done all things required of her and had made the payments when due. The judgment denied defendant's prayer for an attorney fee, but charged the costs to plaintiff.
Defendant contends that the court erred in permitting plaintiff to file amendments to the petition by which it withdrew all allegations and issues therefrom except its claim of ownership of the note and mortgage. Defendant relies upon 12 O.S.1961 § 317, and urges that contrary to the provisions of said statute, the amendments materially change the claim of plaintiff to the prejudice of defendant, and was done to defeat defendant's right to an attorney fee.
Under the circumstances it appears to us that the contention of defendant is inconsistent with the issues presented by her answer. The answer denied the allegations of the petition as to the amount due or that defendant was in default and denied plaintiff's right to foreclose. The court and the parties regarded the amendments as an admission by plaintiff that, as to these issues, the allegations of the answer were true. This eliminated such issues. There was no issue as to the validity of the note and mortgage and the lien thereof. Both the petition and answer asked that the ownership of the note and mortgage be determined and this was the only question of fact left for the court to decide. We fail to see how defendant can complain when plaintiff confesses the truth of the allegations in defendant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Communication Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Local 6003 v. Jackson
...as part of costs cannot be allowed in absence of statute or some agreement expressly authorizing it. Miller v. Liberty National Bank & Trust Co. of Oklahoma City, Okl., 391 P.2d 269. Therefore, we conclude appellant is not entitled to an award for attorney's The judgment of the trial court ......
-
Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Tidwell
...depends upon a final judgment. Oklahoma Farm Mortgage Co. v. Cesar, 178 Okl. 451, 62 P.2d 1269, 1278 (1936); Miller v. Liberty Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 391 P.2d 269, 272 (Okla.1964). 5 We make no conclusions as to the sufficiency of the Tidwells' defense or their response to the motion for s......
-
Halliburton Oil Producing Co. v. Aetna Ins. Co., CIV-76-0724-D.
... ... United States District Court, W. D. Oklahoma ... June 29, 1978. Charles E. ne, Oklahoma City, Okl., for plaintiff ... Russell ... City National Bank & Trust Co. v. Owens, 565 P.2d 4 (Okl.1977); see ... Jackson, 516 P.2d 529 (Okl.1973); Miller v. Liberty National Bank and Trust Co., 391 P.2d ... ...
-
Oklahoma Co. v. O'Neil
...O.S.1961, § 238; Hatten v. Interocean Oil Co.,182 Okl. 465, 78 P.2d 392, 116 A.L.R. 727; 42 O.S.1961, § 176; and Miller v. Liberty National Bank & Trust Co., Okl., 391 P.2d 269. We do not have the benefit of all the trial court's reasoning on this point but under the statutes and the decisi......