Title: Barnes v. Hilton

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

172 Kan. 345 (1952)
239 P.2d 966
ESTHER G. BARNES, Appellee,
v.
E.M. HILTON, Appellant.
No. 38,519

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed January 26, 1952.
Donald B. Clark, of Kansas City, Mo., argued the cause and James E. Campbell, of Kansas City, Mo., and Howard E. Payne, of Olathe, were with him on the briefs for the appellant.
Karl V. Shawver, Jr., of Paola, argued the cause, and Karl V. Shawver, of Paola, and Johnson, Davis, Thomson, VanDyke & Fairchild, all of Kansas City, Mo., were with him on the briefs for the appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
HARVEY, C.J.:
This was an action upon a money judgment of the superior court of Los Angeles County, California, entered upon a confession of judgment. The appeal is from an order of the court sustaining plaintiff's demurrer to the answer of defendant upon the ground that the answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.
Plaintiff in her petition alleged that on February 24, 1949, in the superior court of Los Angeles County, California, she duly recovered a judgment against the defendant based on a written confession of judgment; that no part of the judgment has been paid, and there is due and owing plaintiff from defendant the sum of $11,654.10 with interest at six percent since February 24, 1949, and $10 costs. Attached to the petition and made a part thereof is an authenticated copy of the California judgment. The prayer was for the sum due in the judgment.
To this petition defendant filed an amended answer which contained a general denial, and defendant further alleged that he is a bona fide resident of the state of Kansas residing at 2504 West 51st street in Johnson county, where he has resided continuously for more than four years; that he has not been in the state of California *346 for more than four years; that no service of process was ever served upon him in any action brought in the state of California; that the purported judgment upon which plaintiff's petition was filed was obtained without legal service of process upon him; that he had never entered into any legal agreement, orally or in writing, with any person to enter his appearance in any action in the state of California, nor did he ever enter into any legal written or oral agreement to confess judgment in any action whatsoever; that the purported judgment upon which this action is brought was obtained without proper service of process upon him and is therefore null and void and of no force and effect; that the purported judgment upon which this action was brought was obtained by fraud; that defendant was deprived of his day in court by reason of the fraud committed upon him and by reason of the fact that the superior court of the County of Los Angeles, California, had no jurisdiction over this defendant or over the subject matter; that this defendant never appeared in the superior court of Los Angeles County, California, in any action brought against him by this plaintiff, nor did he authorize any agent or other person to appear for him in such action; that the purported judgment in the action brought by plaintiff against defendant in the superior court of Los Angeles County, California, deprived the defendant of his proper rights without due process of law and violated the rights guaranteed him under the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States; that the defendant had and has a good and meritorious defense to the action brought in the state of California by the plaintiff in which the purported judgment was entered, but because of the fraudulent action of the plaintiff and her agents was deprived of an opportunity to enter such defense and was deprived of his day in court and the rights guaranteed him by the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States. (Our italics.)
Further answering defendant states that on February 23, 1949, one Morton E. Feiler, who was at that time attorney for the plaintiff, filed in the superior court of California for the County of Los Angeles, under cause No. 55,6115, a confession of judgment in the following words and figures:
*347 "CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT
"`Witness hand the day and year first above written.
Exhibit "B" is a note dated Los Angeles, California, December 28, 1942, for the sum of $250.00, due in 90 days; otherwise it is in the form of Exhibit "A." Exhibit "C" is a note dated Los Angeles, California, January 25, 1943, for $300.00, due in 60 days; otherwise it is in the same form as Exhibit "A." Exhibit "D," is a note dated Los Angeles, California, January 25, 1943, for $1,250.00, due on demand; otherwise it is in the same form as Exhibit "A."
"State of California, County of Los Angeles, ss.
*349 It was further alleged that on February 25, 1949, Morton E. Feiler caused to be entered a judgment in the amount of $11,654.10 with interest, being the same judgment as on which suit was brought in this action; but no further proceedings were had in the state of California. It was further alleged the judgment was entered under the provisions of Title III, Chapter 1, Sections 1132, 1133, 1134 and 1135 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, which was in full force and effect at all times mentioned herein, which actions are as follows:
"3. (Relates to a contingent liability.)
It was further alleged that the purported judgment was not in accordance with the laws of the state of California made and provided for judgments by confession and that the judgment is null and void. It was further alleged that the judgment is against the public policy of the state of Kansas. His prayer was that defendant be discharged with his costs.
In this court counsel for appellant first argue that by filing a demurrer to the answer plaintiff admits all the facts pleaded in the petition. That is true as to facts alone which are well pleaded, but it is not true as to the legal interpretation of the facts. For example: In his answer defendant pleads "that he never entered into any legal agreement" with any person to enter his appearance in any action in the state of California, and that he did not "enter into any legal written or oral agreement to confess judgment in any action." These *350 allegations question only the legality of the agreement and do not mean that he did not enter into the agreement contained in the cognovit embodied in the respective notes. It does allege that the judgment rendered against him in the superior court of California was obtained by fraud; but this is ineffective because he sets out no act alleged to have constituted fraud. He alleges that he had and has a good and meritorious defense to the action brought in California, but that is ineffectual because he does not state what the defense is. The answer does make it clear that there has been no proceeding in California to have the judgment rendered against him in that state set aside. If he were not indebted on the note, or if he had any good and meritorious defense, or if there was any fraud in procuring the judgment, there is no reason why he could not have set those matters up in a proceeding to have the judgment set aside in California. The judgment still stands of record as a valid judgment of the superior court of California, which is the court of general jurisdiction in that state. (Art. 6, sec. 5, Calif. Const.) Such a judgment will not be set aside upon the general noneffectual statements above mentioned.
Appellant does not contend that the California attorney who filed the confession of judgment in the California court included therein anything he was not authorized by the cognovits in the respective notes to include in such a statement. His real contention appears to be that the respective cognovits are ineffective because his signature thereto was not verified by his oath. We think the point not well taken. The California attorney was authorized to make that oath and did so. The cognovits are written into the respective notes and as a part of the consideration therefor. They constitute benefits for the payee. Perhaps plaintiff would not have loaned him the monies without them. The cognovits are parts of the contracts that defendant was privileged to make, and as between the parties there is no reason why he is not bound thereby.
In Smith v. The State, 64 Kan. 730, 68 Pac. 641, it was said:
This was cited with approval in Brooks v. National Bank of Topeka, 153 Kan. 831, 838, 113 P.2d 1069. See, also, Manley v. Mayer, 68 Kan. 377, 390, 391, 75 Pac. 550. For our former decisions sustaining judgments on confession rendered in other states *351 see Ritter v. Hoffman, 35 Kan. 215, 10 Pac. 576; Kitchen v. National Bank, 53 Kan. 242, 36 Pac. 344, and Bank & Trust Co. v. Porth, 116 Kan. 310, 226 Pac. 747, and authorities there cited.
We notice, also, that by the cognovits the attorney was "to waive and release all errors and irregularities that may occur in entering up judgment hereon." So, if there was any error or irregularity in the matter the defendant waived it by his cognovits.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.