Title: Johnson v. Johnson
Citation: 233 Kan. 198, 662 P.2d 1178
Docket Number: 53,508
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: January 14, 1983

233 Kan. 198 (1983)
662 P.2d 1178
MARY JOE JOHNSON, Appellant,
v.
L.W. JOHNSON, Appellee.
No. 53,508

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed January 14, 1983.
LaVone A. Daily, of Scott &amp; Daily, Chartered, of Kansas City, argued the cause and Kris L. Arnold, of the same firm, was with him on the briefs for appellant.
Laurence M. Jarvis, of Laurence M. Jarvis, Chartered, of Kansas City, argued the cause and was on the briefs for appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
MILLER, J.:
This appeal requires a determination of the meaning of an order entered by a Texas judge in a divorce case, and the resultant effect of that order. This case was heard by the Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court in a divided unpublished opinion. We granted review. The facts, in chronological order, are:
June 21, 1973 and
Ultimately, the trial court filed a memorandum opinion in which it said in pertinent part:
....
Plaintiff appealed. The majority opinion of the Court of Appeals held that the Texas court's order of October 25, 1973, was a part of the record of that court on February 8, 1974, and "could surely have been offered as evidence" in the Kansas trial. It concluded that the Texas court's order of October 25, 1973, was, as plaintiff characterizes it, a mere "housecleaning" order disposing of the motions for new trial and reaffirming not the original judgment of June 4, 1973, but reaffirming the order of July 19, 1973, setting it aside. We granted review.
Before proceeding, we note that documents which were not before the trial judge in this case have been provided in the briefs for each of the parties, one document by the plaintiff and one document by the defendant. Since this evidence was not before the trial judge, we decline to consider it here.
The defendant did not appear before the trial court when the Kansas divorce case came on for final hearing on February 8, 1974; plaintiff appeared in person and by counsel. At the hearing of defendant's motion to set aside the February 8 judgment, the plaintiff testified that the last letters that she received from her Texas lawyers were written in August, 1973, and that she did not know anything about the order of the Texas court entered on October 25, 1973. There is no evidence in the record that the trial judge, on February 8, 1974, was provided with a copy of the Texas court's final order of October 25, 1973.
Let us review the Texas proceedings. The petition was filed by L.W. Johnson on January 4, 1973. Mrs. Johnson was served personally in Wyandotte County, Kansas. Thereafter, through *203 Texas counsel, she filed an answer objecting to the jurisdiction of the court. That answer asserted that both parties were nonresidents of Texas and in fact resided in Kansas; that the child was living in Kansas with Mrs. Johnson; and that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the parties, their child, or their property. A few days thereafter, however, Mrs. Johnson, pro se, filed a motion for allowance of attorney fees, reciting that Mr. Johnson was an officer in the United States Army with substantial take-home pay, that Mrs. Johnson was maintaining a home in Kansas for herself and their minor child, and that she was unable to pay those expenses and also to pay attorney fees.
Rule 120a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure provides in relevant part that:
The motion for attorney fees was unsworn, was not made in compliance with Texas Rule 120a quoted above, and irrespective of Mrs. Johnson's intentions, constituted a general appearance. See Toler v. Travis County Child Welfare Unit, 520 S.W.2d 834, 836 (Tex. Civ. App. 1975). Thus, when the Texas court heard the matter on June 4, 1973, and granted relief, it had personal jurisdiction over the parties. Later, in June and July, 1973, Mrs. Johnson filed motions for a new trial or in the alternative to set aside the judgment. On July 19, 1973, the trial judge set aside his order of June 4 relating to division of property, child custody, child support, and visitation, and ordered that a further hearing he held on August 13 on those issues. The parties failed to appear as directed and no hearing was held. Finally, on October 25, no action having been taken on the motions for new trial or to set aside the judgment, the judge overruled and dismissed the motions for new trial and reaffirmed "the judgment heretofore entered."
The judgment was entered on June 4; the order of July 19 set that judgment aside, or partially set it aside, and ordered a further hearing on August 13  a date already past at the time of *204 the October order. The only judgment which could then be reaffirmed was the judgment entered on June 4, 1973. We agree with the trial court that the Texas court intended to and did reinstate its judgment of June 4, 1973. This disposed of all the matters at issue in the Kansas proceeding.
A judgment of divorce, including ancillary relief, rendered in conformity with the laws of one of our sister states, is entitled to full faith and credit in this state where the court granting the judgment had personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of the action. Such is the situation now before us, as disclosed by this record. We agree with the well-reasoned opinion of the trial judge which held that Mrs. Johnson did not meet the conditions of the exception stated in K.S.A. 60-1611. She personally appeared in and defended the Texas action; she sought and was granted affirmative relief therein; and the Texas court had personal jurisdiction over her at the time it entered its judgment and decree.
The Texas judgment is entitled to full faith and credit in this state. The Kansas judgment, entered thereafter, should be set aside.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the judgment of the Wyandotte District Court is affirmed.