Opinion ID: 1255321
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: fraud practiced in obtaining the substitution of parties

Text: CSM argues that (a) no evidentiary basis exists for vacating the August 16, 1988 substitution order on grounds of either intrinsic or extrinsic fraud; (b) Jernigan's vacation quest, rested on fraud within the purview of 12 O.S. 1991 § 1031(3), was untimely because it came more than two years after the substitution order's entry; and (c) if Jernigan's claim was founded on extrinsic fraud, he failed to press this ground in a separate action. Jernigan counters that he timely sought vacation relief on the ground of fraud. He directs us to two acts of fraud by counsel for CSM and FDIC which, he says, support his claim. He urges that fraud was committed upon the court by false and misleading statements in FDIC's motion to substitute parties  i.e., that FDIC had become receiver for CSM. Next, he urges that the substitution order was fraudulently obtained in an ex parte hearing without either notice to him or opportunity for an evidentiary hearing.