Court Opinion

ID: 9577262
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:33:31.299827+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:20:14.586475
License: Public Domain

WILLIAMS, Justice
(dissenting).
I am unable to agree with the treatment of the last proposition noted in the maj ority opinion. I believe the trial court should have permitted defendant, Mary Billingslea, to attack the final decree in the Willie Graham probate case. She alleged fraud in the procurement of such decree; if it is in fact void for fraud in its procurement, then Ida Williams never owned all of the lands herein involved and could not have given a valid deed thereto to plaintiffs, and this cause should be reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Defendant alleged and offered to prove that Ida Williams falsely represented to the county court that she (Ida Williams) was the sole heir of Willie Graham; that Sam Billingslea, father of Willie Graham, had been away from home and unheard of for more than seven years; that she did not know and could not with reasonable diligence ascertain his whereabouts; and that he should be presumed dead. Defendant further offered to prove that in truth and in fact Ida Williams knew that Sam Billingslea was not dead; that she and her children had kept in touch with him through the years and his address was either known or could have been ascertained by Ida Williams so that she, as adminis-tratrix, could have given him notice of the probate of his daughter’s estate.
The majority opinion holds that since the final decree of the county court was not reversed or modified on appeal and has become final, it is not subject to collateral attack. With this I cannot agree. See Brown v. Trent, 36 Okl. 239, 128 P. 895, 898, wherein the court said:
“ * * * But an attack upon a judgment for fraud in its procurement is a direct attack over which courts of equity take jurisdiction, and no well-considered case can be found in which such jurisdiction is denied.”
The applicable syllabus by the court in the above case was as follows:
“Where a petition, in a suit to quiet title to certain land, alleges that an order of court directing a guardian to sell land was. procured by fraud, and prays to have the order of sale and subsequent orders approving the sale canceled, the suit is a ‘direct attack’ on the orders and not a ‘collateral attack.’ ”
This holding was followed in the later case of McIntosh v. Holtgrave, 79 Okl. 63, at page 66, 191 P. 739. See also Cone v. Harris, 104 Okl. 114, 230 P. 721.
It is well settled that a judgment may be attacked for extrinsic fraud practiced by the successful party in obtaining the judgment. In the McIntosh case, supra, the court said:
“A domestic judgment may be attacked in three ways:
* * * * * *
“(c) By an equitable proceeding to set aside said judgment for fraud practiced by the successful party, said fraud inducing or entering into such order or judgment, where such fraud is extrinsic to the issues in the proceeding attacked, and especially where the court has been imposed upon by such fraud.”
In Sutton v. State ex rel. Selby, 86 Okl. 120, 206 P. 818, the court said:
“The frauds for which a court of equity will set aside a judgment or decree between the same parties, rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, are frauds extrinsic or collateral to the matter tried by the first court, such as where the unsuccessful party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his case, by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent, as by keeping him away from court, a false promise of compromise or the like and not fraud *183which was an issue in the former action.” (Emphasis supplied.)
In the body of the opinion, the court quoted with approval the portion of the judgment in United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61, 25 L.Ed. 93, from which the following excerpt is taken:
“But there is an admitted exception to this general rule in cases where, by reason of something done by the successful party to a suit, there was in fact, no adversary trial or decision of the issue in the case. Where the unsuccessful party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his case, by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent, as by keeping him away from court * * * or where the defendant never had knowledge of the suit, being kept in ignorance by the acts of the plaintiff * * —these, and similar cases which show that there has never been a real contest in the trial or hearing of the case, are reasons for which a new suit may be sustained to set aside and annul the former judgment or decree”. (Emphasis supplied.)
It can hardly be denied that there was no "real contest in the trial or hearing” of the Willie Graham probate case, insofar as Sam Billingslea was concerned, since he did not know of his daughter’s death, was not served with notice of the probate of her estate, and did not appear at the trial.
The distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic fraud does not lend itself to exact definition, and the statement quoted above from the Sutton case is typical of most of the others contained in the pronouncements of the authorities and courts. The gist of most of these pronouncements is to the effect that extrinsic fraud means “some act or conduct of the prevailing party which has prevented a fair submission of the controversy.” See Electric Plaster Co. v. Blue Rapids City Twp., 81 Kan. 730, 106 P. 1079, 1081; 25 L.R.A.,N.S., 1237; Kennedy v. Dickie, 34 Mont. 205, 85 P. 982; the concurring opinion of Marshall, J., in Boring v. Ott, 138 Wis. 260, 119 N.W. 865, 19 L.R.A.,N.S., 1080; Corney v. Corney, 79 Ark. 289, 95 S.W. 135, 116 Am.St.Rep. 80; Caldwell v. Taylor, 218 Cal. 471, 23 P.2d 758, 88 A.L.R. 1201.
See also Pomeroy’s Equity Jurisprudence, Fifth Edition, Vol. 2, sec. 919d, which reads in part:
“It may be stated as a general rule that where the action of the successful party in probate proceedings, in concealing or failing to disclose to the court the existence of a person interested in the estate, amounts to fraud of any kind, and the defrauded person has thereby been prevented from learning of the proceeding or asserting his claim therein, the fraud is such as to entitle the interested person to equitable relief against the decree of the probate court.”
Assuming that the matters alleged in the offer of proof were true, Ida Williams falsely informed the court under oath that Sam Billingslea had been away from home and unheard of for a sufficient length of time to justify a finding that he was dead. As a result of such false representation, the court was led to make an incorrect determination as to who were the heirs of Willie Graham and Ida Williams was enabled to evade the requirements of the statute that Sam Billingslea be served with notice of the probate of his daughter’s estate. I think this latter result (fraudulent withholding of notice to Sam Billingslea) was extrinsic fraud, since it was collateral to the main issue in the probate case (determination of the heirs of Willie Graham) and “prevented a fair submission of the controversy”.
Considering the offer of proof in the above light, I believe the trial court should have recognized the offered evidence as a direct attack upon the judgment in the probate case based upon the alleged existence of extrinsic fraud in its procurement, and that his refusal to permit such an attack was reversible error.
I respectfully dissent.