Opinion ID: 1199185
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: a support alimony award is subject to readjudication only if the award is void on the face of the judgment roll

Text: At the time the divorce decree was rendered in 1981, the terms of the governing statute  12 O.S. 1981 § 1289(B) [18]  mandated that an alimony judgment be certain as to the total amount of the imposed obligation. A post-decree attack on a monetary alimony award [19] by a party who failed to bring a direct appeal for review of that award could succeed only if the award was fatally flawed on the face of the judgment roll. [20] A monetary allowance is deemed facially void [21] if the total amount of the adjudged obligation is not established in a sum certain or is not in a sum capable of being made certain by reference to the terms of the decree. [22] When an alimony award would be found void for indefiniteness of the decreed obligation, the obligor's liability was subject to readjudication. [23] The Messenger decree sets a specific amount of support alimony to the wife, provides the amount due each month, and declares the length of time for the required payments. No appeal was brought from the award following the marital bond's dissolution. So far as we can ascertain, the face of the judgment roll utterly fails to reveal any jurisdictional defect in the alimony adjudication now sought to be reopened. The judgment was valid when rendered and its efficacy cannot be impaired by after-enacted legislation. [24]