Grattan v. Tillman

9 Citing cases

  1. Matter of Estate of Walling

    910 P.2d 1094 (Okla. Civ. App. 1996)

    Blanca further contends when Verna quit claimed her interest in the property to Robert, pursuant to the property division in the decree, she released the lien created by the decree. She relies on dicta found in Grattan v. Tillman, 323 P.2d 982 (Okla. 1957). That decision deals with a decree that clearly awarded property to the husband "free and clear of any claim or right of plaintiff."

  2. Nantz v. Nantz

    1988 OK 9 (Okla. 1988)   Cited 18 times
    In Nantz, supra note 47 at 1140, the court stated that "[s]ince support alimony is terminable and modifiable, then the right is not vested at the time of the decree, but only at the time each payment becomes due."

    There is, in fact, support in our case law for the proposition that support alimony stands in a class by itself. The case of Grattan v. Tillman, 323 P.2d 982, 984 (Okla. 1957) quotes Commons v. Bragg, 183 Okla. 122, 80 P.2d 287, 290 (1938) as follows: [A]n order for the payment of alimony possesses different characteristics from an ordinary debt since it is designed to secure the performance of a legal duty in which the public has an interest.

  3. First Comm. Bank of Blanchard v. Hodges

    1995 OK 124 (Okla. 1995)   Cited 22 times
    In Hodges, the Oklahoma Supreme Court approved an award of appeal-related attorneys' fees to the successful party on appeal in a suit to determine priority between a general judgment lien and a lien ordered by a divorce decree.

    Here, it is clear that the divorce decree created an equitable lien against the husband's real property to secure the payment of the wife's alimony.United Oklahoma Bank v. Moss, 793 P.2d 1359, 1362 (Okla. 1990); Harmon v. Harmon, 770 P.2d 1, 6 (Okla. 1983); Peters v. Peters, 539 P.2d 26, 27 (Okla. 1975); Gordon v. Gordon, 461 P.2d 14, 16 (Okla. 1969); Grattan v. Tillman, 323 P.2d 982, 984 (Okla. 1957); Ward v. Ward, 317 P.2d 254, 256 (Okla. 1957); Haven v. Trammell, 79 Okla. 309, 193 P. 631, 633 (Okla. 1920); See also, Harris v. Harris, 606 P.2d 619, 621 (Okla. App. 1980). In Harmon v. Harmon, see, note 5 at 5, supra (Recognizing that a decree-ordered lien is an equitable lien; we said that its terms were:

  4. Burrows v. Burrows

    1994 OK 129 (Okla. 1994)   Cited 33 times
    Holding that a father's conveyance of homestead property to avoid past-due support alimony and child support was fraudulent under Oklahoma's version of UFTA

    1978); Whitman v. Whitman, 430 P.2d 802 (Okla. 1967); Grattan v. Tillman, 323 P.2d 982 (Okla. 1958); Bussey v. Bussey, 148 Okla. 10, 296 P. 401 (1931); Haven v. Trammell, 79 Okla. 309, 193 P. 631 (1920). Although the mother failed to protect herself by obtaining a lien, the Court judicially amends the exceptions to the homestead exemption provided by 31 O.S. 1991 ยง 5[ 31-5], and declares father's conveyance fraudulent as a matter of public policy.

  5. Messenger v. Messenger

    1992 OK 27 (Okla. 1992)   Cited 34 times
    In Messenger, the appellant attempted to increase an alimony award on the basis that post-decree law had authorized consideration of military retirement pay in alimony calculations.

    [A]n order for the payment of alimony possesses different characteristics from an ordinary debt since it is designed to secure the performance of a legal duty in which the public has an interest. Grattan v. Tillman, 323 P.2d 982, 984 (Okla. 1957), quoting Commons v. Bragg, 183 Okla. 122, 80 P.2d 287, 290 (1938). The fact that this Court has held that the public has an interest in assuring adequate support for divorced spouses, and that decrees for support alimony are only the equivalent of money judgments to the extent that an installment has become due, should make it clear that such orders in divorce decrees do not represent "vested rights" as judgments for money represent such rights.

  6. Sooner Federal Sav. Loan Ass'n v. Mobley

    1981 OK 124 (Okla. 1982)   Cited 19 times
    In Sooner Federal Sav. Loan Ass'n v. Mobley, 645 P.2d 1000, 1001 (1981) a couple divorced and the decree awarded support alimony and attorney's fees.

    See Haven v. Trammell, 79 Okla. 309, 193 P. 631 (1920), wherein this Court held that the trial court is vested with authority and discretion to make judgment and award of support alimony and attorney fees a lien on homestead property. See also 12 O.S.Supp. 1976 ยง 1289[ 12-1289](C); Putz v. Putz, Okla., 572 P.2d 970 (1978); Turman v. Turman, Okla., 438 P.2d 488 (1968); Whitman v. Whitman, Okla., 430 P.2d 802 (1967); Grattan v. Tillman, Okla., 323 P.2d 982 (1958); and Bussey v. Bussey, 148 Okla. 10, 296 P. 401 (1931), dealing with support alimony or child support as liens on real property by court order. Appellees also contend that their efforts should be treated like a worker's lien.

  7. Matter of W.S

    603 P.2d 1122 (Okla. 1979)   Cited 1 times

    As argued by appellant we determine it was an abuse of discretion to terminate the parental rights of the mother in the circumstances of this case. Grattan v. Tillman, 323 P.2d 982 (Okla. 1958) and J.F.C., supra. Therefore we reverse the trial court's judgment herein challenged. In view of our holding herein we find it unnecessary to discuss any other contentions raised.

  8. State v. Mauldin

    1979 OK 147 (Okla. 1979)   Cited 6 times

    We hold that the summary denial of bondsman's described motions without notice and subsequent refusal to grant requested evidentiary hearing was an abuse of discretion. Grattan v. Tillman, 323 P.2d 982 (Okla. 1958). REVERSED FOR A NEW TRIAL.

  9. SCS/COMPUTE, INC. v. MEREDITH

    864 P.2d 1292 (Okla. Civ. App. 1993)   Cited 4 times

    While recognizing the matter was tried to the court, with waiver of jury, Meredith asserts this Court should look to whether the trial court abused its discretion or whether the "decree" is against the weight of the evidence. He cites Grattan v. Tillman, 323 P.2d 982 (Okla. 1958), which concerned issues arising from a divorce action. The standard suggested by Meredith is appropriate in an action in equity, but in an action at law, even if the jury is waived, we will not disturb the judgment of the trial court when there is any competent evidence, including any reasonable inferences therefrom, tending to support the trial court's findings.