Court Opinion

ID: 9539337
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:02:34.515963+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:44.079724
License: Public Domain

WELCH, Justice
(concurring in part and •dissenting in part).
I agree that the judgment and sentence ■of 90 days imprisonment entered herein is clearly erroneous and cannot stand, as held in the majority opinion following the rule of Hadley v. Pladley, 129 Okl. 219, 280 P. 1097.
However, I think it would be better to remand the cause for further consideration and action in the trial court.
Then the trial court could determine and fix the balance remaining due from defendant to plaintiff, which, though requested, was not done by the trial court. The court also could consider other points including the age of the daughter, which may have become material in view of the necessity of vacating the judgment and sentence of 90 days, and directing in lieu thereof a commitment until further payment, or the accomplishing of the same thing by an entirely new commitment as is contemplated by the majority opinion.
In the original petition filed herein by the plaintiff on February 8th, 1944, she referred to her daughter as “Earlyn Tisdell, now approximately three years of age.” Then the young lady is “now approximately twenty years of age.”
As shown in the majority opinion there is contrary view between the majority and the trial court as to the exact amount paid by defendant in the last few years. There was no stated finding in the trial court of the exact or aggregate amount due plaintiff, though plaintiff sought such determination. The plaintiff alleged that $187.50 had been paid and that “there is now due and owing upon said child support and costs the sum of $1,312.50.” This emphasizes the need for trial court hearing and determination of the exact amount due plaintiff so that the rights and liabilities may be lawfully fixed and effectively imposed.
Any commitment until payment should be quite certain as to the sum required to be paid. That is also true as to any judgment that might be rendered or entered for plaintiff and against defendant.
This .particular proceeding originated on plaintiff’s written application. Therein she specifically requested the trial court to determine the amount due her and that she have judgment for the same.
The prayer of that application was not only for citation of defendant as for contempt, but also that “the court determine the amount past due and owing her as child support and expenses, and that she have judgment for such amount,” and that she have other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.
The only disposition made in the trial court was the imposition of this sentence *282of defendant to 90 days imprisonment, which we have found was erroneous and cannot stand. There was no fixing of the exact amount due, and no granting or denying of plaintiff’s request and prayer for the entry of a judgment for plaintiff in an exact amount.
I think the cause should be remanded with directions to the trial court to vacate the 90 day sentence and re-try the matter, and to render judgment and/or to order commitment more in keeping with the presentations in the application and in consideration of and in keeping' with the full rights and liabilities of the parties.
For failure of the court to so proceed, I respectfully dissent.