Opinion ID: 2613135
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: effect of 1967 quiet title judgment

Text: As previously set forth, the defendants' claim to title to the NW/4 NE/4 originated through heirship from Will J. Shaw and the 1967 quiet title judgment determined that Will J. Shaw's heirs were unknown. On the basis of these facts, plaintiffs contend that the defendants cannot now seek to avoid the effect of that judgment by relying on collateral facts to establish that the heirs of Will J. Shaw were known. Defendants assert that they are not bound by the 1967 judgment because they were not parties in that action. We agree with defendants and hold that the prior judgment does not affect their title to the disputed property. Initially, we agree with plaintiffs that a party cannot rely upon matters outside of the judgment roll in attacking a judgment which is not void on its face. See Panhandle Royalty Co. v. Farni, 747 P.2d 932, 934 (Okla. 1987). However, the document upon which plaintiffs must rely in attempting to prove that defendants are bound by the quiet title judgment is the same collateral facts about which they now complain. Neither Victoria Shaw nor Dorothy Ashinhurst were specifically named as defendants in the 1967 suit. Therefore, in order to establish that these women were parties to that action and thus bound by the 1967 judgment, plaintiffs must establish that Victoria and Ashinhurst were the unknown heirs of Will J. Shaw. The document which shows that they were Shaw's heirs is the Final Decree for the Estate of Will J. Shaw, dated December 14, 1962. However, this is the same document which proves that Will J. Shaw's heirs were not, in fact, unknown. Plaintiffs conceded this when they stipulated that Will J. Shaw, deceased had no unknown heirs or devisees but only known, judicially determined, living heirs and devisees, which were Victoria Shaw, and Crane and Ashinhurst. Ashinhurst need not rely upon extrinsic evidence to collaterally attack the quiet title judgment because she was neither a party nor a privy to that action. Judgments bind only parties and privies  not strangers or persons not parties to the action. Cartwright v. Atlas Chemical Industries, Inc., 623 P.2d 606, 611 (Okla. 1981). A person is a privy to an action if she: acquired an interest in the subject matter of the action either by inheritance, succession, or purchase from a party subsequently to the action, or [she holds] the property subordinately. The term `subsequently to the action' means either after the suit is brought in which title or right is involved, or after the rendition of judgment. Dierks v. Walsh, 203 Okl. 113, 218 P.2d 920, 923 (1950), quoting Factor Oil Co. v. Brydia, 184 Okl. 113, 85 P.2d 311 (1938). Neither Dorothy Ashinhurst nor Victoria Shaw, from whom Ashinhurst derived a remainder interest, was a party to the quiet title action. Furthermore, under the definition set forth above, neither woman was a privy to the suit. When Will J. Shaw died in 1958, his mineral interest in the NW/4 NE/4 passed to Victoria Shaw for life, with the remainder to Victoria Shaw, Crane and Ashinhurst. Victoria Shaw and Ashinhurst acquired their interests prior to the filing of the quiet title action in 1966 and the rendition of the judgment in 1967. Accordingly, the quiet title judgment is not binding upon Ashinhurst. Further, the judgment is not binding upon Tomlinson, Brewster or Royalty Partners because they acquired their interests through Ashinhurst. See Greco v. Foster, 268 P.2d 215, 220 (Okla. 1954). Plaintiffs also argue that since the 1967 quiet title judgment was rendered prior to Bomford v. Socony Mobil Oil Co., 440 P.2d 713 (Okla. 1968), the publication service upon the unknown heirs of Will J. Shaw is valid despite that Shaw's heirs were actually known to Crane. If we were concerned about the sufficiency of publication service upon Shaw's unknown heirs, this Court would agree that pre- Bomford caselaw must be applied. [5] However, as we stated above, Victoria Shaw and Dorothy Ashinhurst were known heirs of Will J. Shaw and not parties to the quiet title action. Therefore, the sufficiency of publication service upon them is not at issue herein. Our answer to Certified Question No. 4 is that the 1967 quiet title judgment has no effect upon the defendants' mineral interest rights in the NW/4 NE/4.