Court Opinion

ID: 9606960
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:54:28.082723+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:36.567788
License: Public Domain

CROCKETT, Justice
(concurring).
I concur in affirming the judgment, but think it desirable to make these observations :
It appears to be an indisputable fact that the judgment in the prior condemnation case sought only to condemn the property for the purpose of constructing a reservoir as authorized by Sec. 73-1-6, U. C.A.1953; and not to take fee simple title to the property. However, whether by inadvertence and mistake, or by ulterior design, the judgment actually entered such fee title for plaintiff Moon Lake. This was in excess of the authorization of the law, and went beyond the purpose of the proceeding and the stipulation of counsel therein. Even though the time for appeal elapsed and the judgment became final, it would and should have been subject to attack and correction for the reasons just stated. But there is a difficulty to be confronted in that no action has been brought to so correct or reform that judgment. Notwithstanding that fact, by taking a liberal view of the defendants’ counterclaim in this action, as I think the interests of justice herein warrant, and particularly as aided by the prayer thereof, the counterclaim can be regarded as requesting that this be done.
*1266It likewise is to be recognized that the findings and judgment in this case do not purport to amend or correct the judgment in the prior case. Although in most circumstances the formal findings of fact and judgment supersede the prior decision of the trial court, where there is no conflict and they supplement each other as to essential findings, the written memorandum decision duly signed and entered by the trial court, can be looked to to augment and reinforce the findings.1 In doing so here, it is seen that the trial judge, with commendable thoroughness and perspicacity, in his memorandum decision accomplished the purpose above set forth. He pointed out therein that the prior judgment did not conform to the intent and purpose of the condemnation proceeding; that it went beyond the authority of the court to enter such a judgment under the statute; and expressly stated that for those reasons the defendants were entitled to the benefit of amendment of that judgment as it should have been entered according to the stipulation of the parties and the applicable law.
For the foregoing reasons I join in affirming the judgment.
ELLETT, J., concurs in the views expressed in the concurring opinion of CROCKETT, J.

. See 46 Am.Jur.2d, Judgments, Sees. 67 and 76; Rogers v. Harris, 76 Okl. 215, 134 P. 459.