Statser v. Statser

3 Citing cases

  1. Swick v. Swick

    1993 OK 151 (Okla. 1993)   Cited 8 times

    We believe he did. In Statser v. Statser, 205 Okla. 608, 239 P.2d 764 (1951), we held that where a divorce action remained pending, notwithstanding the fact the parties had reconciled and the wife no longer sought to prosecute the divorce action to completion, the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain the application of wife's attorney to award her fees to be paid by husband for the work the attorney had already done in the case. Id. 239 P.2d at 765-766.

  2. Owens v. Owens

    1953 OK 310 (Okla. 1953)   Cited 6 times

    This court has never held that an attorney's fee allowance in a divorce case was void if ordered to be paid direct to the attorney. We have always taken a view contrary to California, because we have held that the attorneys for the wife in a divorce case have a personal interest in the allowance of attorneys fees to the extent that the attorneys may in their own name enforce the payment of the same to themselves and for their own private benefit, though the wife does not participate in such proceedings with the attorneys, and though the wife might in fact be antagonistic to such enforcement by the attorneys. See Smith v. Smith, 169 Okla. 305, 36 P.2d 886, Kelly v. Maupin, 177 Okla. 44, 58 P.2d 116, and Statser v. Statser, 205 Okla. 608, 239 P.2d 764. This court has, over many years, recognized the validity of allowances of attorneys fees in divorce cases when the language used by the Judge and written in the journal entry named the attorneys in various ways, and in some cases where it referred to them, but did not name them.

  3. Musser v. Musser

    955 P.2d 744 (Okla. Civ. App. 1997)   Cited 2 times

    Again, in these situations, it seems evident that, if the attorney has standing to bring the action, then the court has jurisdiction to require the return of those fees if the award is reversed on appeal. See Kelly v. Maupin, 177 Okla. 44, 58 P.2d 116 (1936) (attorney may enforce through contempt proceedings order that husband pay attorney fees, even after wife has dismissed her petition); Statser v. Statser, 205 Okla. 608, 239 P.2d 764 (1951) (where attorney has performed services for wife, reconciliation of the spouses will not deprive court of jurisdiction to hear application by attorney for fee to be paid by husband); Owens v. Owens, 264 P.2d 341 (Okla. 1953) (attorney has personal interest in fees sufficient to give him standing to pursue recovery of fees in his own right).