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."
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.
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:
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.
[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.
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.
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.
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.
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.