*1 сlient, lawyer recovery to the no net This charging pro lien tanto.
waives his clear lan
reasoning support in the finds statute, well 43 and
guage of the §§ Charity of Providence of
as in Sisters Nichols, P.2d 279 v.
Montana [Mont.
1971]. my bring would about
Because views past practices and inas-
sharp break from legislative language used in
much as the lawyers imparts but scant 43 and
§§ hospital
notice of the lien statute’s intended recovery while upon the client’s net
effect I lawyer,
it in the hands of his/her remains judgment the trial court’s
would allow
this case to stand undisturbed. I would applicable pro- pronouncement
make our
spectively hospital to those liens which shall
have filed after the decision herein been
becomes final. American-First Title and Okl., Ewing, Company
Trust v. [1965]; Poafpybitty Skelly v. Oil Okl.,
Company, 519-520
[1964],
Sherry POTTER, Petitioner, WILSON, Judge,
Alma District
Respondent.
No. 54145.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
April
Rehearing May Denied *2 Brooks,
Gary City, peti- for L. Oklahoma tioner. by Gregory & W. Al-
Stockwell Albert
bert, Norman,
respondent.
for
ALA, Justice:
OP
proceed
The issue
this
tendered
ing
is: When
the terms of the divorce
jointly-owned enterprise
decree title to a
spouse
who is ad
apart
set
to one
[Wife]
judged
outstanding
assume the
indebted
so awarded her and to
of the business
ness
harmless
spouse
hold the other
[Husband]
jointly-incurred obliga
from that class of
tions,
against
will
lie
the assum
ing spouse
to enforce her
default
indemnity? In the
for the court-ordered
phrased
question
narrow context so
impression. Recognizing
one of first
likely will serve an im
early
its
settlement
need,
urgent statewide
we as
portаnt and
original jurisdiction
pronounce
sume
holding here
negative.
answer in the
Our
contempt,
enforceability, by
deals with the
judicial
of but one class of
decisions—the
adjudicated liability,
equity,
at law or in
for
It
not
payment money
general.
does
apply to a court order that directs
general rule there
au
fund,
As a
is no
or from
specified
money
a
from
adjudged
lia
personal-property
executing
identified
for
an
thority
some other
existence, by one who is
source, then in
money
bility
be ordered
a debt
of that source. If
control
obligor.3
executory process
body of the
sup-
part of an award for
integral
paid
ad
capias
means
imprisonment
permissi-
port alimony,
becomes
(ca.sa.), which at common
satisfaciendum
*3
of enforcement.
ble mode
et
lay only
trespass
in
vi
originally
law
indemnity claim Husband re
by
For his
later
to be extended
armis and
came
of
divorce decree
provision
on
the
lies
the
cases,4 not
un
other
is
available
statute to
Wife to hold him
generally orders
which
to
legislative enactment
any
der
Oklahoma
“any
the
indebtedness” of
harmless from
adjudicat
of an
one who seeks satisfaction
His appli
was awarded her.1
business that
money.5
to
obligation
pay
ed
charges
contempt
for
citation
her
cation
paying
in
different obli
with default
four
executory
applicable
The fabric of
partial
оf which has been
gations, only one
with
process
quite complete
would not be
party
Husband. Neither
has
ly
by
satisfied
to our
inter
out allusion
fundamental law’s
here,
raised,
the
we heed not decide
2
imprisonment for debt. Art.
diction of
cоurt-ordered in
question whether Wife’s
13,
in the
of
Although
context
Okl.Con.
§
demnity
enforceable when she al
became
is
prohibition
this constitutional
“debt”
to be
obligation
lowed the
ordered
assumed
restrictively defined
limited
sometimes
as
to
whеn that obli
by her
fall in default or
ex contractu6 and
obligations arising
to
by the Hus
gation came to be satisfied
not coextensive
hence as a technical term
that
payment.
ques
The answer to
band’s
debt”7,
with
it is clear
meaning
“judgment
сourse,
the
depends,
tion
of
on whether
money judgment-obligee
that where the
tersely-worded clause
the decree created
of
statutory
for
left
law without
warrant
indemnity
indemnity against
liability or
execution,
body
resort
attachment in aid of
427(1)
(2).
against
15 O.S.1971
§
loss.
process
contempt
to the
of
becomes
coercive
against
gives
rise to a claim
the
former
impermissible.
obligee
must
simply
default,
his
while the latter is
indemnitor on
that
not be allowed
indirection to do
has
litigable only after the
satis
indemnitee
short,
may
directly.8
delinquent obligation.2
the
which he
not do
In
fied
order,
judgment-debtor,
provides
pertinent part
§
1. The
10. An
directed to a
decree
apply specified propеrty
is .
award-
to
or funds “toward
[Wife]
corporate
judgment”
ed all
assets and all the
stock and
satisfaction of
Billiards,
ownership
may
by contempt.
sole
of Potter
Inc. free and
enforced
12
be
O.S.1971
[Husband],
any
Heiman,
850;
(10th
clear of
clаims of the .
Freeman v.
Properly in its historical considered
text, could the fact contemnor by which to complied,
have had the means order, to do
comply with the and fails court proves disobedience
so at once a willful
necessary of con- statutory definition
tempt removes the realm of the it from prohibition against imprison-
constitutional for debt.
ment