Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06174/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06174-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James R. Tanner
Appellee
Mazel M. Tanner
Appellant

Document Text:

MAZEL M. 

v. 

JAMES R. 

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPE~ited States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

TANNER, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

) 

) 

TANNER, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

NOV 2 6 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-6174 

(D.C. No. CIV-89-202-R) 

(W .D. Oklahoma) 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and TACHA, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously to honor the parties' request for a 

decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff Mazel M. Tanner, in this diversity action, sued her 

ex-husband James R. Tanner, seeking "clarification" of a property 

settlement agreement approved by a Texas state court in connection 

with their 1971 divorce. She brought a similar action in the 

Texas state court system which ultimately resulted ·in a decision 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-6174 Document: 010110051354 Date Filed: 11/26/1990 Page: 1 
by the Texas Court of Appeals. The appeals court denied relief on 

the ground that her action really sought a modification of the 

property settlement which is impermissible under Texas law. 

Plaintiff insists that her federal court action asking similar 

relief is not one seeking modification of the prior decree, but 

clarification, entitling her to a declaratory judgment. The 

district court denied relief, finding that her action was barred 

by the doctrine of res judicata or collateral estoppel. We agree 

for substantially the reasons stated in the district court's order 

entered April 5, 1990. 

AFFIRMED. 

-2-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-6174 Document: 010110051354 Date Filed: 11/26/1990 Page: 2