*1 tо be resolved when remained certificate issues, effected. These
Part I order was being pressed and remained
which were abandonment, or by
unwithdrawn waiver resolved the Part II order.
came to be very
It is that order constituted the judgment”
“final in the case as the term is short, in 75 323. §
used O.S.1971 proceedings court under the Admin-
district Act one
istrative Procedures possible. From that there can sought appeal. Appellant
be but one both the district court
dichotomize single appeal
ment and the is made 323.
available
Appellate powerless grant courts are
dispensation legislatively-imposed jur- from requirements.8
isdictional should be dismissed.
SOONER FEDERAL SAVINGS AND ASSOCIATION,
LOAN
corporation, Appellee, MOBLEY, Appellant, Jones, III,
Susan J. Edwin J. Don Jones,
na Merck James W. Tips, Gary Dean,
Robert H. J. Ever Otis
sole, Flanagan, Appellees. William
No. 53261.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
Oct. 1981. Rehearing May
On 1982. O’Bannon, (Okl.1981).
8. Estate of *2 Ashbaugh, L. Claremore,
David appel- lant, Mobley. Gibson, Tulsa,
Theodore P. appellee, Tips. Robert H.
James W. Claremore, attor- ney pro se appellees, and for Susan J. Mob- ley, Otis Eversole and William Flanagan. Waldo, Crowe,
James R. Dunlevy, Thweatt, Swinford, Burdick, Johnson & Oklahoma City, appellees, Edwin J. Jones, III, and Donna Merck Jones. Dean,
Gary J. Pryor, attorney pro se. BARNES, Vice Chief Justice: On January Appеllant, Mobley, wife, pur- Susan his Rogers chased tract land County. This property properly was designated as their Mobleys homestead. The assumed a mortgage with Savings Sooner Federal Loan Association.
On June the parties obtained a decree, divorce. the trial court Appellant found that pay should attor- ney fees to his attorney, wife’s James Sum- merlin, and attorneys, to his Tips Robert Appellant Dean. was also or- Eversole, pay dered to Otis an Appraiser, Flanagan, аnd William a Certified Public Accountant, for services during rendered proceedings. divorce The decree fur- provided ther Appellant pay his wife support alimony $25,- in the total amount of 000.00, payable ten-year period. over a pаrties’ home Appel- was awarded to the decree, however, lant. The did not make any of the above claims lien on prop- erty Appellant. awarded to the granted,
After the Appel- decree lant continued to live on same to be homestead. Exceptions continued general to this pro- rule are Appellant remarried and 5, vided in 31 §O.S. which reads: of both himself and his wife. the homestead exemption “The Federal insti- On March Sooner vided for chapter in this shall nоt apply de- proceedings, tuted due to foreclosure where the debt is due: Summerlin, Tips, Appellant. fault “1. purchase For the money of such *3 Dean, Flanagan an and all filed Eversole homestead a purchase or of such action, the cross-petition and in each answer money. seeking upon respective to his foreclose “2. For legal taxes or other assess- claim. ments due thereon. Federal dismissed its action on Sooner “3. For work and material used in 20, 1978, and the filed his July Appellant contracting improvements.” cross-petition to the of the other answer parties. Appellees rely the holding on of Campanello Mason, (Okl. v. issue,
Trial was had the and the 1977), attorney which held that though prop- court that liens be trial found even the can erty Appellant, placed property was the it on homestead secured in a divorce subject Ap- the to claims cited above. action. Campanello can be distinguished to this pellant aрpeal comes Court that because none the of claims of judgment. Dean, Tips, Flanagan Eversole and were made a lien Appellant’s homestead The sole before us is a issue whether property by the divorce decree. The di subject money is person’s homestead to a vorce trial court could have made such judgment won another. The statutes Appellant’s claims lien on real provide guidance property, clear to an answer to this O.S.Supp.1980 including Indeed, 31 question.1 Title 1 his homestead.2 in Cam- § that: vides panello we per held that when an attorney attorney “A. as Except provided pursuant otherwise in fects lien to 5 O.S. notwithstanding 6, title this and subsection such lien attaches to the property § herein, following property B shall be awarded to his client as “fruits” of his every person residing reserved to in the However, efforts. in this case only state, exempt from or attachment execu- we have before us is the divorce every and other оf species tion forced sale decree, Appellees’ which reflects that claims debts, payment except for the of here- as were not made a lien on provided: in property, only but were ordinary money person, “1. Thе home of provided such judgments. appeal This is not an of such is principal that home residence divorce case Appellees claiming wherein are person.” such attorney’s imposed, liens should have been Neff, (Okl. v. but an in a Kelough 382 P.2d foreclosure action 135 wherein 1963), Appellees claiming this section as mean are or interpreted we an money ing dinary money judgment did not attorney’s consti for fees a lien tute debtor’s homestead. be Appellant’s can enforсed home- provides 1. See also support Const.Art. in § tion make award of part: alimony attorney fees a lien on homestead property. O.S.Supp.1976 be, See also 12 family “The homestead of shall Putz, Okl., 1289(C); hereby Putz v. 572 970 protected P.2d from forced sale Turman, Okl., debts, (1978); (1968); payment money, except purchase v. 438 488 Turman P.2d for the Whitman, Okl., thereon, Whitman v. P.2d the taxes due or work 430 Tillman, (1967); constructing improve- and ments used in 802 v. P.2d material Grattan 323 thereon; (1958); Bussey Bussey, ...” 982 148 v. Okl. (1931),dealing support alimony P. 401 296 with Trammell, 2. See Haven P. 79 Okl. supрort child as real or liens on wherein this Court held that the court order. authority trial court is vested with and discre- statutory attorney’s no stead. Since A purported copy of the judgment placed the homestead in the divorce favor of Dean in the divorce proceedings decree, Appellees’ judgments ordinary are entered on October is attached to money judgments and cannot be enforced Dean’s brief in support petition of his homestead, against Appеllant’s as such rehearing. Otherwise, reference to exempt retains its status under this record before us is the 5.§O.S. following allegation in Dean’s Answer and Cross-Petition filed below in the case at Appellees also that their contend ef bar: like a forts should be treated worker’s lien. says contention because the cross-petitioner
This attor “1. That has and ney’s Ap efforts secured the house for the claims a lien against the property describ- pellant, compared these effоrts can to a ed in the herein, in the amount acceptance construction worker’s. ONE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED position require would an unreasonable NINETY SIX & 87/100 DOLLARS *4 reading phrase, of the “constructing im ($1,396.87)plus alleged interest thereon provements thereon”. $500.00, in the amоunt of all per as Judg- against ment D.O., Adair Mobley, in exemptions The listed this section were made and entered on the day 20th of designed to carve out the few times that a October, 1977,as fully appears more in a against could lien be executed a homestead. certain of Judgment Journal of said date Appellees’ interpretation expend would made and entered in cause numbered D- exemptions past the the clear intent and 76-82 in the Rogers District Court of purpose Legislаture. of the County, Oklahoma, is which incorporated Accordingly, judgment we reverse the of by herein reference. the District Court. “2. That judgment provides said REVERSED. the same is lien upon a the property of MOBLEY, defendant judgment and said IRWIN, J., HODGES, C. and LAVEN- alia judgment inter orders said foreclosed DER, SIMMS, OPALA, HARGRAVE and as against the of said defendant. JJ., concur. “3. That the of priority said lien dates SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON 30, 1976, back to March at which time
REHEARING originally filed, said cause was and the claim of attorneys said lien was endorsed LAVENDER, Justice: upon petition thе filed in said cause. petition rehearing, Gary for On J. Dean That “4. the lien and claim of this contends status different from cross-petitioner is superior priority in to other the lien claimants because on Novem- all of the claims and liens of all othеr Application ber he filed an parties and parties additional defendant Judgment Attorney on Fee in the divorce herein, save except plaintiff, and and proceedings October, day the 20th cross-petitioner to, prays entitled 1977, the Rogers District Court of County, in foreclosure said lien the manner Oklahoma, in judgment entered a the di- law, prescribed by and form and determi- proceedings vorce in favor of Dean and priorities.” nation of decreeing Paul Mobley and that the rеquests grant Dean judgment upon shall be a that this Court “leave lien Thus, plaintiff.1 urges, supplement the record addition of Dean he is said brought Trammell, judgment within in justice, Haven v. 79 the interest of Okl. (1920) 193 P. Campanello being oversight, v. omission thereof error and Mason, Okl., being and has party prejudiced thereby a and no since lien upon valid homestead. recitation of is of said argument brief, original 1. This was made in Dean’s filed in this matter. requests decrees, further ments appeal.” He of its pro records and judgment en- аnd the
rehearing granted be ceedings in formerly actions pending before he to show that tered herein be modified “It particular it. will take pro notice of Mobley good has a and valid ceedings formerly it, pending before property. which reference is made in the pending litigation, wherein persons the same or their not presented The matter thus does privies parties were and a decision vital to omission of a neces involve the inadvertent pending case has been entered.” Chis Therefore, there part the record. sary Stephenson, supra, holm v. was followed and judgment of October was no omission of the approval cited with Fox-Smythe Trans from the record on which O.S.1981, portation Company v. might McCartney, be corrected under 12 (1973). in P.2d Appellate and Rules of Procedure Perfecting a Civil Civil Cases—Rules on eases, following From the above con- (b), Appeal, 1.20(a), (g). having Rule Never are clusions drawn: case, of the record in the been 20, 1977, сould not judgment of October Rogers The District Court of have been omitted from the record. County properly judicial could have taken prior notice of the proceedings before it may next consider what relief We procured wherein J. Dean judicial afforded under doctrine of no- May Supreme judicial tice. Court take rehearing expressly
notice on
of a
made a lien
the homestead
ment entered
a court below in a cause
property Mobley, рarticularly
real
since
*5
separate
ap-
which was
from the cause on
particular
Dean made
reference to that
only
peal where the
reference to the cause
judgment
pleadings
in the
he filed in the
allegatiоn
in the record on
is an
that
pending
However,
Supreme
case.
judgment
was entered in the collateral
judicial
Court does not
take
notice of
cause,
purported incorporation
and a
judgment
Dean’s
judgment
where that
pleаding by
terms thereof into the
refer-
not a
of the record
appeal.
before it on
ence?
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that
Works,
Plating
Okl.,
In Green v. Mac’s
Gary
Dean’s
rehearing
(1977),
IT FURTHER ORDERED IS rendered in this cause
opinion of this Court October, hereby day the 20th adding as to Dean
modified foregoing on rehear- opinion
the above and
ing thereto.
All concur. Justices COMPANY,
FERRELL CONSTRUCTION
INC., Appellee Cross-Appellant, COMPANY, COAL
RUSSELL CREEK Cross-Appellee.
Appellant and
No. 53774.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma. 16, 1982.
Feb.
Rehearing April 1982. Denied