*1 powers granted Okl.Const.,17 from like of its shield Art. 7 ceived the benefit and Poafpybitty, and Isbell must the district court fate Hale transfer case to its equal County is entitled here to treat- own docket where it should be treated as ment. having timely lodged, been because its com- tardy mencement below was not under the The text of 246515in force at the time misperceived remedy.18 APA proceeding’s of this commencement was misleading. provisions doubtless Its did county among
not include a who SUMMARY bring appeal Supreme could an to sum, original I jurisdic- would assume utility from the Board’s lowered assess- writ; deny tion and I would hold that Hale, ment. As in neither the statutes nor County standing had before the Board County clarity case law advised the with standing appeal protect and has to its appellate which tribunal was vested with lost revenué from a utility lowered assess- Moreover, jurisdiction. language of ment; I County’s and would direct that the 318 in the Administrative Procedures Act court, appeal, timely brought in the district clearly gave County greatest assur- be removed to this court—under the au- having standing protest ance of as an thority 6, Okl.Const., Hale, of Art. 7 and aggrieved party. County did indeed supra disposition in accordance with —for wrong choose the forum in face the terms of uncertainty obscurely created word- judicially ed and untested Tax Code enact-
ment, appeal its is entitled to be rescued teachings
under the of Isbell and Hale. a) Today’s pronouncement plainly sub- jects County to less favorable treat- private
ment than that which accorded litigants situations, b) in like and denies the NANTZ, Appellant, William C. County equal appellate process access to guaranteed by Open-Courts-of-Justice
Clause in Art. 2 Okl.Const.16 NANTZ, Appellee. Patricia Ann I legis- Because would not ascribe to the No. 62029. lature an intent to exclude counties from Supreme Court of Oklahoma. access to this I court under construe the of that section Feb. standing afford corrective relief and to a As Corrected Feb. county protests utility a lowered as- sessment. County
If the did indeed choose the wrong appeal, forum for I its would hold court,
today that the exercise of 15. For the text of § 2465 see 16. The terms of Art. 2 Horseracing [1982] right phasis supplied.] injury out dy “The courts Moses v. every person, afforded for sale, denial, delay, person, property, justice Commission, The Oklahoma v. Tulsa Tribune Hoebel, justice and every wrong shall be administered with- speedy the State shall be Okl.Const. are: and certain reme- prejudice." reputation; and for note 1. every [Em- open Earl v. Tulsa 18. See 17. The Const., are: rel. rules_” the Chief Justice in accordance “ * * * all courts in this State ... [Gjeneral Dept. Supreme pertinent provisions Transp., [1980] [Emphasis supplied.] and shall be exercised Court administrative County Application Dist. of Art. 7 hereby Court, Okl., authority vested in State ex over Okl. its *2 Brown, Lawton, appellant. Dan R. Lile, Fleur, Nicklas, & John N. Saenz Inc., Lawton, appellee.
WILSON,
ALMA Justice: again
We called on to address ali- subject where mony cohabitating a mem- recipient is again opposite ber of sex. The issue retroactivity O.S. addressed is subsequent and its amend- ments. appeal granted
The parties to this
were
by the
decree of divorce
District Court
County
January
on
Comanche
It
provided,
to property
in addition
division
support payments,
appel-
and child
that the
pay
appellee support
lant
per
the amount of
month from Decem-
$300
1, 1978,
1,1993.
through
Support
ber
June
subject
alimony was
to termination
remarriage
appellee.
death or
of the
February
appellant
On
filed
modify
payments
the support
a motion to
County
Ap-
in Comanche
District Court.
pellant’s
grounded
the alle-
motion was
cohabiting
gation
appellee
was
and that
with member
sex
modification
termination of
justified
therefore
O.S.
1289(D).1
Laws,
Sess.
1.§
The 1983 amendment was in effect
ch.
at the time
See,
motion
was filed.
support may
be modified
ment of
was denied
Appellant’s motion
proof
relating
circumstances
The trial
court on March
district
ability
sup-
to the need for
motion
to sustain the
ruled that
court
port which are
and continu-
substantial
to the stat-
give retrospective effect
ing so as to make the terms of the decree
ute,
October
which became effective
party. Only
unreasonable to either
those
nine months after the divorce
over
*3
accruing subsequent
installments
to the
granted.
had been
may
motion for modification
be mod-
1289(D)
voluntary
makes
cohab-
Section
ified.3
spouse
a member
itation of a former
with
any
provides
That subsection
that
divorce
opposite
sex
for the modifi-
may
decree
be modified. The movant need
support
cation or termination of future
relating
only prove
circumstances
moving party proves
payments where the
a
support
ability
support
to the need for
or
to
change of circumstances of ei-
substantial
continuing
which are
and
as
substantial
so
party
relating
to the divorce
to need
ther
to make the terms of the decree unreason
ability
support.2
support
to
able. Proof sufficient for relief under sub
1289(D)
retrospec-
should be
Whether §
similar, requiring
section D is
“substantial
Smith v.
in
tively applied was addressed
change
party
of circumstances of either
to
Smith,
(Okl.1982).
In
which date effective alimony modification ground itation” ruling prius the nisi today affirm 1289(D)2 given to be ret- are allowed exposition of our fundamental correct that, my view like rospective It is effect. law. money judgments, other and unaccrued awards —both II. obligation embody portions of decreed — rights constitutionally vested ARE CONSTITUTIONAL- JUDGMENTS by after-enact- shielded diminution V, BY ART. LY PROTECTED legislation. recede from the ed I hence THE OKLA. CONST.5FROM EFFECT pronouncement. court’s OF AFTER-ENACTED LEGISLA- TION I. Monetary support alimony adjudicated in IN CRITICAL FACTS LITIGATION judicially decree constitutes a cre- divorce sought Appellant’s 1984 motion modifica- obligation protect- pecuniary ated which monetary support tion of a divorce decree’s ed effect of from the alimony award. Movant relied obli- footing equal money judg- tion on a to a cohabitation, voluntary gee’s first “judgment” ment.6 The terms and “de- 1289(D).3 allowed decree was synonymous. Judgments cree” are em- January, rendered in the statute that body necessarily all the accrue sought the modification below authorized creditor,7 absolutely vest in the be- effective October
became 1979—after signify cause they a final determination of The trial held the award’s rendition.4 court parties’ rights proceed- an action or that the benefits of remedy obligor ing.8 reduction did not avail 1289(G), O.S.Supp.1987 pro- The terms of The terms of Art. 3, 1987, provide: which became on June vide: (D) (E) of subsections *6 repeal a statute not revive a shall stat- of retrospective pro- this section shall have statute, repealed previously by ute such nor spective application regards with to modifica- repeal any right, shall such affect judgment tions of of a final or incurred, begun penalty proceedings by alimony support, order for as of a divorce repealed [Emphasis virtue such statute. of alimony pertaining payment decree to the of added.] support, regardless the date that applies only repealed This not section statutes order, judgment, or decree was [Em- entered. any legislative changes by but also to amend- phasis added.] America, Inc., Volkswagen v. ment. See Lee pertinent O.S.Supp.1987 2. The text of 12 Property 7 and note Prudential and Casual- infra 1289(D) provides: Grimes, Okl., ty Company v. 1250 voluntary spouse cohabitation aof former [1986]. with a member sex shall be ground judg- modify provisions aof final Stanfield, v. 67 Okl. 168 P. Stanfield alimony support. order ment or 914 [1917]. voluntary alleged cohabitation is in a motion payment the court America, Inc., Okl., Volkswagen v. Lee 743 jurisdiction shall have to reduce or terminate [1987]; Royal P.2d v. Timmons Globe support payments upon proof future sub- Co., Okl., [1985]; Mayhue Ins. P.2d circumstances_ change stantial [The [1985]; Mayhue, v. Okla underscored terms became effective October Dist., Res. Bd. v. M.C. homa Water Central Okl. 1, 1979 and in 12 are codified O.S. 1981 also, Pru 1289(D). They unchanged remain since Property Casualty Company dential v. their date.] Grimes, supra note pertinent
3. For text of see note Finnell, 8. Finnell v. 113 Okl. Arkansas, [1924]; v. Henderson 278 § 4. See Okl.Sess.Laws Ch. 1 at 793- P. 753 [1918]. highest Rights nature law.17 in features known to alimony An award is some monetary judgment in a constitutionally reflected are adjudicated other different from legislative by in shielded from interference dischargeable is not obligations.9 It by con- after-enacted statutes.18 bankruptcy;10 can be enforced termi- tempt; modified and it be portion That of a obli- varying Despite nated.12 these characteris- gation is which unmodified and unterminat- present in awards tics which are ed at the time of its stands on accrual pro- money judgments, the not in other but footing any with constitutional identical by tections to the latter affordable money judgment pro- other is hence apply also former to the absolutely by tected 54.19 Section 54 force. undiminished clearly mandates that install- unaccrued alimo- question There is ments be shielded also—not from modifica- no money ny judg- pre-existing is and other tion or termination on modifiable any contingencies from ments are not. issue here is what law new —but imposed govern remedy must of modifica- or conditions that have been since when post-decree sought stages. Property tion is in Noth- rendition. award’s interests in other in or in “vested” that are Stanfield13 Stanfield supports constitutionally jurisprudence extant the court’s insulated the effect of from today later-passed statutory leg- changes.20 conclusion that when modification invoked, any statutory powerless judgments remedy is new islature is to burden present force at the time award not not in with conditions law at adjudication. imposi- mov- rendered can available to the time Judicial legal altering prior judgments ant as a the alimo- tion of basis new conditions ny’s Modifiability prohibited equally by decreed value.14 does state fundamental ipso eo vitiate award’s fundamental law.21 qua adjudicated obligation nature for the monetary alimony pro- Unaccrued also is ” payment money by protected by begun the “proceedings tected clause changes by made in 54.22 That clause unaffected leaves legislation.15 later-passed legislation proceedings any begun judgment’s validity A effect and must be effective date were governed the law force at time new law. enforce de- Efforts to rendition; adversely its neither can be creed must be as a characterized af- changes proceeding begun applicable legislation later in ef- fected comprise Judgments obligations law.16 fect at time the rendered. award was Tillman, Dickason, supra 7; 9. Grattan v. Dickason note 12 note at Property Casualty Company Prudential Grimes, supra note 5. *7 523(a)(5). 10. 11 U.S.C. § Osborne, 59, 467, Vaughn v. 229 P. 17. 103 Okl. 11. 12 Wilson, Okl., 1276; Potter v. § O.S. 1981 470 [1924]. 1278, [1980], 609 P.2d 1281 V, 54, Const., quoted supra 18. at Art. Okla. 12. 12 (E); 1289(B), (D) O.S.Supp.1987 supra See also the cited at note 5. authorities Dickason, Okl., 674, Dickason v. 607 P.2d 676 note 7. Funnell, Okl., 1319, [1980]; v. Funnell 584 P.2d 1322 [1978]. Muskogee v. 19. Hammons Medical Center Au- 13. See supra Okl., 539, note 6. thority, [1985]. 697 P.2d 542 14. See Hurst, 546, Morley v. 174 Okl. 49 P.2d America, Inc., Volkswagen supra 20. Lee v. of Crump Guyer, v. 548 [1935] and 60 Okl. 157 Co., 7; Royal Timmons v. Insurance Globe note [1916], P. 322 7; Crump Guyer, supra supra v. note 14. note 15. Stanfield, supra v. note Stanfield part of dissent. 21. See discussion in III Mayhue, 7; Mayhue supra Lee v. v. note America, Inc., V, Volkswagen supra pertinent Tim 22. For the text of Art. note supra Royal Company, mons v. Glove Insurance see note 5.
1144 branches, forbidden from each of which is meaning contemplation Within the in a proceeding responsi- continues every encroaching powers such upon the point of alimo- pending status power Legislative is of the other.26 bilities fully is sat- ny’s the award allowance until law, making mainly confined to while by terminated by payment or isfied primarily adjudi- is judiciary invested short, quests for obligor’s death. all authority to hear and cative function—the or termination of post-decree modification disputes.27 forensic determine proceedings be- are be deemed rendered. The gun when the award was upon the validity depends judgment’s A by the law remedy governed movant’s — it.28 the court that renders by jurisdiction time—stands unaffected force at that subsequent changes.23 judiciary court were rendered judgment aIf prohibited by legislature as well as cognizance, the en- subject matter without grant- unequivocal terms of 54 from attempts a statute actment of ing relief based upon jurisdiction confer after-the-fact tion.24 Neither the courts nor the lawmak- invalid constitute an court would ing body burden unaccrued judicial au- exercise upon liability the decreed with conditions body law-making pow- A lacks thority. obligation which were absent from law ren- when void to validate er adjudication.25 at the time retroactively impotent equally It is dered. 1289(G) By providing rights in of their vested creditors to divest 1289(D) voluntary cohabitation obligation. adjudicated payments applica- modifying alimony rendered the latter ble awards before 1289(G) changes date, Insofar as sanctions subsection’s impermissible constitutionally has created judgments rendered in the terms of escape alimony obligors and hatch for some in force at effective date of the statute adversely deprived affected credi- has rendition, it ali- time of makes settled protection tors their fundamental law’s readjudication mony claims vulnerable Okla. Const. grounds unknown at the time dispute’s The subsection termination. III. clearly depreciates the value of decreed 1289(G)
SECTION Legislative al- monetary support awards. civil judicially determined liabili- teration THE OF VIOLATES SEPARATION adjudicative ty constitutes an exercise POWERS DOCTRINE power does not reside the lawmak- government functions of divided body.30 among our law three fundamental 24. State v. 26.Art. ferty, 25 Okl. ified the award was rendered. nition that [1981], The terms of L.Ed. 1558. man, appeal dismissed 322 U.S. Okl., "The Oklahoma shall departments: See First Allgood Allgood, 586 P.2d 193 Okl. powers is but one IV, Nat. § Worten, Art. 1, 721, 554, Bank Pauls The Okla. that were not IV, 1, example be divided into alimony may Legislative, government of the State 146 P.2d § Const.; [1983]; [1978]; Okla. 717, of this court’s Valley Crudup, Puckett v. 64 S.Ct. 564, State v. Const., provide: *8 in force when Executive, Jones three be mod separate 1288, McCaf [1944], recog Cook, Free- of 30. Each 28. See Dist. must use restraint the functions 25 P.2d Okmulgee 1000 [1926]. powers properly belonging to either Judicial; rate and ers." cial stitution, Reynolds v. Tweedy Oklahoma Bar Reynolds Sterling Court, Okl., departments 312, [Emphasis separate department County, distinct, Refining v. assigned Brock, Brock, supra Legislative, [1933] except and neither to avoid added.] [1981]; In re Courthouse Co. v. government Okl. 122 Okl. and Earl v. to some other branch. provided Executive, Walker, note encroaching upon Association, shall exercise 110, of 547 [1980]. 28. Tulsa shall be government 165 Okl. in this Con- P. and Judi- the oth- County sepa- 999, 45, protected by property rights of our fundamental law.37 cited 1289(G) impairs the also en- Because § SECTION 1289(G) II, IV. VIOLATES ART. of a narrow subclass judg- of forcement 7,31 V, AND 2433 ART. AND §§ monetary support alimo- ments —unaccrued THE 4634 OF OKLAHOMA CON § the effec- ny awards rendered before STITUTION of terms violate tive date —its V, pro- Okla. Const.38 The cited Art. every vested rights that become absolutely our fundamental law vision of private property with- judgment constitute categorically mandates statutory II, 7, 23 and meaning Art. in the of §§ collecting changes in the methods for debts 24 shield 23 and Sections Okla. Const.35 enforcing judgments made be taking public for use rights from those tion that affects all adjudicated obligations as from compensation as well just without in like manner.39 or without com- taking private for use with deprivation 7 interdicts pensation. Section process due of law. property without
of V. Supp. of O.S. terms SUMMARY 1289(G),36 modification which authorize V, Const., makes mon- section’s Article Okla. rendered before the judgments of date, extinguish etary support awards —both as vested operate II, Swatek, pro- paving Okla. In city district Art. was established terms of imposed against ordinance that assessments vide: lot, payable life, each benefited ments, in annual liberty, install- deprived of person shall “No and created a lien each. After process law.” due property, without of bonds, paving issuance of but before the last [Emphasis added.] due, Regents installments came the Board of purchased land within the district. Owner of II, pertinent terms of Art. Okla. 32. The by affecting property the bonds secured Const., provide: sought payment after the installments became property private “No aged sation, shall be taken or dam- delinquent. Because the installments were the use, private compen- with or for without only source from which the bonds could be owner_” unless consent of the paid, precluded by and since the owner was foreclosing upon against statute from the liens II, land, pertinent Regents’ 33. The terms of Art. pro- Okla. a reverse condemnation Const., provide: ceeding was filed. The court held that the land purchase by Regents, satisfy- made without property "Private shall not be taken or dam- liens, "taking” property amounted to a aged public just compensa- use without * * *" public just compensation. use without tion. By analogy, just as the state was unable to purchase land assessments were levied and after pertinent V, terms of Art. under color right statute divest a lienholder of the Const., provide: payment, legislature prohibited so is the not, Legislature "The except shall as otherwise using legislation to divest provided Constitution, pass any local holders that became vest- * * * special authorizing law providing or adjudication. ed in them at the time of final changing the methods for the collection of debts, or judgments enforcement of " * * * [Emphasis supra pertinent 38.See note 34 for the text added.] Okla. Const. 35. See Regents Swatek v. Board Oklahoma Colleges, [1975], citing P.2d Independent See Maulev. School District No. Duncan, City Graham v. County, Tulsa 714 461 [1960]. [1986]; Barrett v. Board Com'rs Tulsa County, [1939]; 446-447 also, pertinent note 1 for the see Property text and Prudential and Casual 1289(G). ty effective date Company Grimes, J., §of (Opala, concurring) supra note 5 at 1251. Brock, supra Reynolds note 28 at 1001 37. See Regents Oklahoma Board Swatek v. Colleges,supra note 35. *9 installments—im- and unaccrued tinkering
pervious and invulnerable legislation. The § modification, if enacted after rendition, is not avail- decree’s the affected for modifica- obligor as a basis to the able 1289(G)violates Recently enacted tion. powers and separation of the doctrine of II, 23 and well Art. offends §§ Const. 46 and §§ by the teach- stand I continue to Holdsworth,41 which ings of Smith40 pronounce- by today's overruled are both ment; trial court’s order affirm the I would obligor and strike
denying relief
to.
1289(G)as unconstitutional.
down §
Sr.,
CASTRO,
Petitioner,
W.
John
Oklahoma, Respondent.
STATE
No. F-84-378.
Appeals
of Criminal
of Oklahoma.
Nov.
21, 1988.
Certiorari Denied March
See