Court Opinion

ID: 9573256
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:51:06.9866+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:39:10.910543
License: Public Domain

McFARLAND, Justice
(dissenting):
I cannot agree with the result reached by the opinion of the majority. I agree with the third ground and specific reasons as set forth in the dissent of Justice Udall.
As stated by Justice Udall, Gladys Porter submitted herself to the jurisdiction of the Idaho court and alleged that the parties “own as community property an interest in the Arizona Hotel,” thereby placing the issue before the Idaho court.
The majority opinion states that Gladys Porter alleged in her answer that the Arizona Hotel was community property, burdened with a lien, but that two weeks later it was sold under execution sale and became separate property by reason of the sheriff’s sale “which fact must have been brought to the attention of the Idaho court” but does not state how it must have been brought to its attention. The records in the instant case include pleadings but not the transcript of testimony; however, the bringing of the matter of the sale to the attention of the Idaho court would not change the situation.
In the instant case Gladys Porter, in her supplemental answer filed after the Idaho judgment, alleged the Idaho court was without jurisdiction to determine ownership to the Arizona property because the property was in custodia legis of the Superior Court of Maricopa County. She also sought a charging order against any interest of Arnold Porter in the Continental Hotels System in the same pleading. She further sought to have the Idaho court give full faith and credit to the separate maintenance *151decree, alleging there was due and owing to her under said judgment the sum of $23,-693.21 and that this amount will increase by $1400 on the first day of May, 1961 and the first day of each month thereafter until said decree is modified or set aside. She asks that the judgment and decree of the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Idaho, insofar as it relates to the divorce of the parties and to the support and alimony of a minor child, Tom Clark Porter, and to plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs, be established as a foreign judgment and that a charging order be issued out of the Superior Court of Maricopa County against the interest of Arnold Porter, also known as W. A. Porter, in the said copartnership known as the Continental Hotels System. She further asks that the said charging order provide that additional payments which became due under the judgment and decree of the Idaho court become a lien against the interest of said Arnold Porter, also known as W. A. Porter, in said Continental Hotels System.
In any event, by her conduct in Idaho, having accepted the benefits of the judgment and decree of the Idaho court, she waived any interest she possessed in the Arizona Hotel property. By signing the quitclaim deeds she is now estopped from claiming any interest in the property. However, the conveyance of her interest in these properties could only convey such interest as she had on the date she signed the quitclaim deeds — on February 27, 1961. This was some nine months after she obtained a deed to the property under the sheriff’s sale.
The order of the court under which the property was sold was for separate maintenance and attorneys’ fees. The record does not show whether the attorneys’ fees were paid by cash or by a conveyance of an interest in the property by Gladys Porter. If by the latter method, her conveyance under the decree of the Idaho court would be subject to whatever encumbrance or conveyance she had previously made of the property to her attorneys.
It is my opinion that the case should be reversed for further proceedings, including the determination of the interest, if any, which Gladys Porter conveyed by her quitclaim deeds.