Mock v. Stricklin
| Decision Date | 16 April 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 37067,37067 |
| Citation | 315 P.2d 247 |
| Parties | C. Coit MOCK, First National Bank of Wichita Falls in Wichita Falls, Texas, a national banking corporation, Harvey Gerald Hart, Helen Juanita Hart, Patsy Ruth Hart and Glen Ray Hart, Plaintiffs in Error, v. W. F. STRICKLIN, as Guardian of the Estate of Lela Pearl Hart, an insane and incompetent person, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The county court in guardianship proceedings having found the necessary jurisdictional facts and having issued letters of guardianship, such guardianship proceedings are not subject to a collateral attack unless the proceedings are void upon their face.
2. An objection, by a defendant to the jurisdiction of the trial court over his person, may be raised and preserved by a special plea thereto or by objection included in the first pleading filed by him which would otherwise be a general appearance in defense.
3. Where the mental capacity of a grantor is a material issue in an action to cancel a conveyance for incompetency, evidence as to his weakness of mind is not confined to the date of the conveyance, but may go to any period of his life, prior and subsequent to the conveyance.
4. The contract of a person of unsound mind, but not entirely without understanding, made before her capacity has been juridically determined, is subject to rescission without prejudice to rights of third persons, as provided in the statutory article on extinction of contracts.
5. In an equitable action, the presumption is in favor of the correctness of the judgment of the trial court and such judgment will not be set aside unless found to be against the clear weight of the evidence.
Appeal from the District Court of Carter County; Jess I. Miracle, judge.
Suit by the plaintiff W. F. Stricklin, as guardian of the Estate of Lela Pearl Hart, an incompetent, against defendants, C. Coit Mock, First National Bank of Wichita Falls in Wichita Falls, Texas, a national banking corporation, Harvey, Gerald Hart, Helen Juanita Hart, Patsy Ruth Hart and Glen Ray Hart and others to cancel a trust agreement, quiet title to an interest in realty and for an accounting. From judgment for plaintiff, the named defendants have appealed. Affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded with directions.
William J. Williams, Ardmore, guardian ad litem for Hart Minors.
C. Coit Mock, Wichita Falls, Texas, Otey, Johnson & Evans, Ardmore, for plaintiffs in error.
George & George, Ernest W. Tate, Ardmore, for defendant in error.
This is a suit, brought in the District Court of Carter County, Oklahoma by W. F. Stricklin, Guardian of the Estate of Lela Pearl Hart, and incompetent, against her son and daughter, Henry Houston Hart and Maudie Hart Wheat, and their children, Harvey Gerald Hart, Helen Juanita Hart, Patsy Ruth Hart, Glen Ray Hart, Flodene Wheat McWorther, Donald E. Wheat, Kenneth E. Wheat, and Doris E. Wheat Felts, and against C. Coit Mock and First National Bank of Wichita Falls, Texas, whereby said plaintiff sought to cancel a certain trust agreement in so far as it affected lands in said county. The parties will be referred to as they appeared in the trial court.
Lela Pearl Hart and her son and daughter, above named, were residing in Wichita Falls, Texas, when, on April 7, 1952, she executed a certain trust agreement whereby she appointed the defendant, Mock, as trustee to manage all of her property, both real and personal, for the successive benefit of herself, her two children and her eight grandchildren. The trust conveyance did not specifically describe any certain property but was of 'all properties that I now own, whether real or personal, or mixed, of every kind and character, whereever situated, and agree to grant, bargain, sell, assign and convey in trust all properties which I may later acquire * * *'. By the terms of the agreement, the trustee was given complete authority over the property, to deal with it as he saw fit, to withhold the trust assets or to distribute the same to any or all of the beneficiaries, equally or unequally, as he saw fit, to appoint a successor trustee who should have no power to inquire into the previous management of the estate. The trust was made irrevocable and to exist throughout the life or lives of each and all of the beneficiaries.
At the time of execution of the trust agreement, Lela Pearl Hart's property consisted of a one ninth undivided interest in approximately 640 acres of land in said Carter County, Oklahoma, which she had inherited from her father and on which there were three producing oil wells, cash in the approximate amount of $7,000 held by her brother for her, and a small house in Wichita Falls, Texas of about $800 in value. At the time of the trial of the case at bar, there were some forty producing oil wells on the land.
On June 26, 1954, the County Court of Carter County, Oklahoma, appointed the plaintiff herein as guardian of the estate of the said Lela Pearl Hart and, on July 7, thereafter, this suit was instituted by him, seeking the cancellation of the trust agreement as to the lands in said Carter County and the quieting of the title of the said Lela Pearl Hart thereto. Trial of the issues to the court resulted in a decree and judgment for plaintiff from which this appeal was taken by the children of Henry Huston Hart, the trustee, C. Coit Mock, and the successor trustee, First National Bank of Wichita Falls.
The first questions with which we are confronted relate to jurisdiction. It is contended that the plaintiff was not authorized to bring this suit, because the County Court of Carter County did not have jurisdiction to appoint a guardian for the estate of the said Lela Pearl Hart, a resident of the State of Texas unless her incompetency had been previously determined by a proper tribunal of the state of her residence. Regardless of the merit, if any, in that contention, it is not properly before us for determination in this suit. The authority of the County Court, to appoint a guardian of a non-resident minor's or incompetent's estate, is defined by 58 O.S.1951, § 861 and 30 O.S.1951 § 9. By attacking the validity of the order appointing the guardian, in this lawsuit, the attack is collateral and, as was held, in the case of Powers v. Brown, 122 Okl. 40, 252 P. 27,
'The county court of Latimer county in guardianship proceedings having found the necessary jurisdictional facts and having issued letters of guardianship, such guardianship proceedings are not subject to a collateral attack unless the proceedings are void upon their face.'
In the case now before us, the order of the county court appointing the guardian contained a finding that Lela Pearl Hart was 'a person of unsound mind and mentally incompetent to manage her property and estate.' What evidence constituted the foundation of that finding of fact cannot be collaterally inquired into in this action. In the early case of Lowery v. Parton, 65 Okl. 232, 165 P. 164, 165, the primary issue was the validity of a guardian's oil and gas lease. The authority of the county court to appoint the guardian was attacked upon the ground that the purported minor had reached the age of majority before the appointment. We said therein that 'The order having recited the fact that Choctaw Lowery was a minor, that the necessity existed for the appointment of a guardian, and that W. C. Daniels possessed the qualifications necessary for a guardian, and that an application had been filed asking for such appointment, we think renders the order good as against collateral attack.' The same reasoning is applicable to the situation now under consideration.
The next proposition goes to the jurisdiction of the trial court to render a personal judgment against the defendant C. Coit Mock. Mock was served by publication. The original petition of plaintiff contained a prayer solely for judgment in rem. Mock filed a general motion to quash service, then a general demur...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taylor v. Gilmartin, 81-1215
...Okl. 236, 257 P. 309 (1927). Concededly, though, where the order is void on its face, a collateral attack is permissible. Mock v. Stricklin, 315 P.2d 247 (Okl.1957). In the case before us the facts are such as to support the conclusion that there is a lack of jurisdiction and voidness in Ju......
-
Sooner Federal Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Smoot
...of the nature of the challenged transaction and the capacity to achieve such understanding. A third line of cases, Mock v. Stricklin, 315 P.2d 247 (Okla.1957); Marten v. Wagner, 198 Okla. 273, 178 P.2d 618 (1947); and Powell v. Hughes, 189 Okla. 241, 116 P.2d 896 (1941), find application in......
-
Johnston v. Fancher, CIV-76-1039-D.
...Okla.Stat.1971 §§ 861 et seq.3 may allow a non-resident to serve as guardian for a non-resident ward. Plaintiff relies on Mock v. Stricklin, 315 P.2d 247 (Okl.1957), as prohibiting a collateral attack on letters of guardianship where county courts have found that they have the necessary jur......
-
Allied Reserve Life Ins. Co. v. Pierson
...statutes upon proof that it was entered into under certain circumstances described therein. In this connection, see Mock v. Stricklin, Okl., 315 P.2d 247, 251, 252, and the cases quoted therein. In the recent case of Bellah v. Cooke, Okl., 347 P.2d 794, we noted the recognition, in our stat......