Court Opinion

ID: 9794525
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:07:39.282235+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:31.054311
License: Public Domain

HALLEY, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
To me the Enid Memorial Hospital and Baptist General Convention were not necessary parties to this action.
I do not think the trust here is a spendthrift trust but is a discretionary trust. At this time it is immaterial.
In my opinion the trial court erred in entering judgment for a lump sum because of 60 O.S.1961 § 175.25 subd. H, which is:
“The provisions of this Section may be enforced only by an action in a court of competent jurisdiction and the obligor beneficiary shall be a party defendant in such action. The trustee shall not be required to recognize any of the obligations provided for in this Section or to withhold any income from the beneficiary until said trustee has been served with summons or garnishment summons. Such action shall be governed by the rules of civil procedure under the laws of Oklahoma.” (Emphasis supplied.)
In view of the foregoing subsection, I think that since the trustee bank was not served with summons prior to this action- and had no official notice that it should' provide for child support other than give money to the children’s father, that part of the judgment which directs the payment of $4,172.34, should be inferior to the payments for child support and the payments to the beneficiary for the necessities of life for himself and his family and should not be paid until the income of the trust estate-will justify the expenditure.
I dissent to the majority opinion.
I am authorized to state that WILLIAMS, J., concurs in the views herein expressed.