Mitchell v. Lindly

• Decision Date: 10 May 1960
• Docket Number: 38651,Nos. 38643,s. 38643
• Citation: Mitchell v. Lindly, 351 P.2d 1063 (Okla. 1960)
• Parties: C. D. MITCHELL, Administrator with the Will Annexed of the Estate of W. A. Graham, Deceased, Plaintiff in Error, v. R. J. LINDLY, Defendant in Error. Mac Q. WILLIAMSON, Earl Ward, Bob Chambers, Co-Trustees of the W. A. Graham Public Improvements Trust Estate, Plaintiffs in Error, v. R. J. LINDLY, Defendant in Error.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Page 1063

351 P.2d 1063

1960 OK 115

C. D. MITCHELL, Administrator with the Will Annexed of the Estate of W. A. Graham, Deceased, Plaintiff in Error, v. R. J. LINDLY, Defendant in Error.

Mac Q. WILLIAMSON, Earl Ward, Bob Chambers, Co-Trustees of

the W. A. Graham Public Improvements Trust Estate, Plaintiffs in Error, v. R. J. LINDLY, Defendant in Error.

Nos. 38643, 38651.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

May 10, 1960.

Syllabus by the Court.

Where it was sought to vacate a judgment, in exact accord with the duly executed stipulation of the parties to an action, after the judgment had been satisfied by payment, and it was not claimed that said payment was involuntary, or made under any mistake, or misapprehension, of fact, the trial court's refusal to vacate the judgment was not an abuse of sound legal discretion.

Appeal from the District Court of Mayes County; Josh J. Evans, Judge.

Where, after affirmance by the Supreme Court of a judgment for plaintiff, against the administrators of a deceased's estate, as defendants, said parties' ancillary claims were adjusted according to a settlement evidenced, and described, by a stipulation filed in the action for an agreed, or consent, money judgment, thereafter entered, and paid by the then acting administrator of said estate, said administrator, and the trustees of a public improvements trust, to which the majority of the estate's property had been distributed, filed motions to vacate said judgment. From orders and/or judgments overruling said motions, the administrator and trustees appeal. Affirmed.

A. C. Wallace, John R. Wallace, Ben T. Owens, Miami, for plaintiffs in error, Mac Q. Williamson, Earl Ward, Bob Chambers, Co-Trustees of W. A. Graham Public Improvements Trust Estate.

Ralph B. Brainard, Claremore, for plaintiff in error, C. D. Mitchell, with the Will Annexed of Estate of W. A. Graham, Dec'd.

Hunt & Lock, by Riley Q. Hunt, Jay, for defendant in error.

BLACKBIRD, Justice.

The controversies involved in the above styled and numbered appeals are sequels to Ward v. Lindly, Okl., 294 P.2d 296, in which this court affirmed a district court judgment, in favor of R. J. Lindly, cancelling a deed purporting to convey from his grandmother and predecessor in title, Nan Bledsoe, to the late W. A. Graham, a certain Pryor Creek, Oklahoma, lot, on which Graham had constructed a duplex apartment building. In that action instituted by Lindly, as plaintiff, against the defendants, Earl Ward, C. D. Mitchell and Baylis L. Graham, as co-administrators of the W. A. Graham Estate, Lindly sought the property's rental value for the years 1952-1954, as well as its possession, cancellation of the aforesaid deed, and the quieting of his title, but the cited decision settled only Lindly's right to the property, without any further attempt at fixing an accounting between the parties as to the past income from the property, or adjusting, reconciling or resolving any claims either might have upon such funds.

After Ward v. Lindly, supra, became final, Lindly and C. D. Mitchell, the then sole acting administrator of the W. A. Graham Estate, agreed upon a settlement of such undetermined issues in the manner reflected by the following pertinent provisions of a stipulation, which was duly executed by both parties and their attorneys, on April 2, 1956, and filed in the action:

'* * * 3. That the defendants have made a claim against said property for the value of the improvements placed thereon, and that the plaintiff has made a claim against the defendants for the rental value of said property during the period of time the property was and has been in the possession of W. A. Graham and the defendant Administrators.

'4. That it is the plaintiff's contention that the value of the improvements, expenses, taxes, and all assessments against said property has been more than offset by the rentals collected thereon, to the extent that the defendant Administrators now owe the said plaintiff the sum of Four Thousand Three Hundred One and 55/100 ($4,301.55) Dollars.

'5. That it is the contention of the defendants herein that the rental value of said premises up-to-date exceeds the cost of the improvements, expenses, taxes and special assessments by the sum of only Two Thousand One Hundred Twenty Seven ($2,127.00) Dollars.

'6. It is understood, stipulated and agreed by and between the parties hereunto that in order to save the Graham estate expensive, burdensome and bothersome and expensive litigation, that it is to the best interest of all parties to this suit to settle said claim in order that this matter may be finally disposed of, and in accordance therewith, the parties hereunto by negotiation have arrived at a figure of Two Thousand Nine Hundred ($2,900.00) Dollars to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff, together with the actual physical delivery of said property in full settlement of all claims, demands, or rights in law or in equity.

'7. It is, therefore, stipulated and agreed by and between the parties hereunto that the Court may, without further notice, render judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for the sum of Two Thousand Nine Hundred ($2,900.00) Dollars, to be immediately and forthwith paid by the defendant to the plaintiff in full and complete settlement and satisfaction of all claims or demands against the defendant of any nature whatsoever, and that said defendant shall immediately and forthwith deliver to the plaintiff the real property and premises, together with all the improvements, appurtenances and hereditaments thereunto belonging to the plaintiff, and that when this stipulation is executed by the parties hereunto and approved by the District Court of Mayes County, Oklahoma, and judgment is rendered in accordance herewith, that this stipulation, the judgment of the Court, and the payment of the sum of money, in the amount of Two Thousand Nine Hundred ($2,900.00) Dollars by the defendant to the plaintiff, and the actual physical delivery of the real property and premises is made by the defendant to the plaintiff, and the payment of the Court costs in this action by the defendant, that this stipulation and the judgment rendered hereunder operate as a final and complete release, satisfaction and adjudication of all claims or demands by the plaintiff against the defendants and by the defendants against the plaintiff, it being the desire of the parties hereunto by the payment of the Two Thousand Nine Hundred ($2,900.00) Dollars to the plaintiff, the delivery of the property and the payment of the Court costs in this action to finally and for all time compromise, settle and dispose of all claims or demands of one party against the other pertaining to the real property hereinabove described and this cause of action.' (Emphasis ours).

On April 3, 1956, the district court, hereinafter referred to as the trial court, entered its judgment, in accord with the above stipulation, fixing Lindly's monetary recovery against Administrators Ward and Graham, as well as Mitchell, referred to therein collectively as 'defendants', at the sum of $2,900. According to an undisputed statement in the briefs filed herein, Mitchell then satisfied said judgment by paying Lindly $2,900 of the Graham Estate's funds in his possession.

In the meantime, in the probate proceedings governing the administration of the W. A. Graham Estate, the majority of said estate, by county court order of April 7th, 1954, had been directed to be distributed to the trustees of the W. A. Graham Public Improvements Trust Estate, as more fully appears from State ex rel. Williamson v. Longmire, Okl., 281 P.2d 949, and Mitchell v. Williamson, Okl., 204 P.2d 314.

On June 29, 1956, said trustees instituted one of the proceedings herein dealt with, by filing their motion to vacate the above described agreed, or consent, judgment of April...