faith and credit clause in Oklahoma

1977Chapman v. Walker, 144 Okl. 83 , 289 P. 740 (1930); Remick v. Remick, 204 Okl. 345 , 229 P.2d 600 (1951); Clampitt v. Johnson, Okl., 359 P.2d 588 (1961); Application of Price, Okl., 528 P.2d 1107 (1974).

1977Chapman v. Walker, 144 Okl. 83 , 289 P. 740 (1930); Remick v. Remick, 204 Okl. 345 , 229 P.2d 600 (1951); Clampitt v. Johnson, Okl., 359 P.2d 588 (1961); Application of Price, Okl., 528 P.2d 1107 (1974).

1974But the child’s welfare in a custody case has such a claim upon the State that its responsibility is obviously not to be foreclosed by a prior adjudication reflecting another State’s discharge of its responsibility at another time.” * * * The syllabus of the court in Aufder Heide v. Kiskaddon, 79 Okl. 6 , 190 P. 859 (1920) cert. denied, 254 U.S. 636 , 41 S.Ct. 9 , 65 L.Ed. 450 holds: “A judgment of a sister state in a divorce proceeding giving the father the right to the care and custody of minor children is not, under the full faith and credit clause of the federal Constitution, binding in a

1974But the child’s welfare in a custody case has such a claim upon the State that its responsibility is obviously not to be foreclosed by a prior adjudication reflecting another State’s discharge of its responsibility at another time.” * * * The syllabus of the court in Aufder Heide v. Kiskaddon, 79 Okl. 6 , 190 P. 859 (1920) cert. denied, 254 U.S. 636 , 41 S.Ct. 9 , 65 L.Ed. 450 holds: “A judgment of a sister state in a divorce proceeding giving the father the right to the care and custody of minor children is not, under the full faith and credit clause of the federal Constitution, binding in a

1991Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 , 99 S.Ct. 1182 , 59 L.Ed.2d 416 , (1979) reh.den. 441 U.S. 917 , 99 S.Ct. 2018 , 60 L.Ed.2d 389 . /The result in Pate is correct, however, we reject any reasoning in Pate which is inconsistent with this opinion.

1991Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 , 99 S.Ct. 1182 , 59 L.Ed.2d 416 , (1979) reh.den. 441 U.S. 917 , 99 S.Ct. 2018 , 60 L.Ed.2d 389 . /The result in Pate is correct, however, we reject any reasoning in Pate which is inconsistent with this opinion.

1990Pettit v. American National Bank of Austin, 649 P.2d 525 (Okl.1982).

1978In Sherrer, supra, p. 350 , 68 S.Ct. p. 1090 the Supreme Court noted: “[t]his Court has also held that the doctrine of res judicata must be applied to questions of jurisdiction in cases arising in state courts involving the application of the full faith and credit clause where, under the law of the state in which the original judgment was rendered, such adjudications are not susceptible to collateral attack.” (Footnotes omitted.) *494 The Oklahoma case of Brasier v. Brasier, 200 Okl. 689 , 200 P.2d 427 (1948) is discussed by both parties as raising questions as to whether a sister state’s judi

1978In Sherrer, supra, p. 350 , 68 S.Ct. p. 1090 the Supreme Court noted: “[t]his Court has also held that the doctrine of res judicata must be applied to questions of jurisdiction in cases arising in state courts involving the application of the full faith and credit clause where, under the law of the state in which the original judgment was rendered, such adjudications are not susceptible to collateral attack.” (Footnotes omitted.) *494 The Oklahoma case of Brasier v. Brasier, 200 Okl. 689 , 200 P.2d 427 (1948) is discussed by both parties as raising questions as to whether a sister state’s judi

1977Chapman v. Walker, 144 Okl. 83 , 289 P. 740 (1930); Remick v. Remick, 204 Okl. 345 , 229 P.2d 600 (1951); Clampitt v. Johnson, Okl., 359 P.2d 588 (1961); Application of Price, Okl., 528 P.2d 1107 (1974).

1977Chapman v. Walker, 144 Okl. 83 , 289 P. 740 (1930); Remick v. Remick, 204 Okl. 345 , 229 P.2d 600 (1951); Clampitt v. Johnson, Okl., 359 P.2d 588 (1961); Application of Price, Okl., 528 P.2d 1107 (1974).

1977Chapman v. Walker, 144 Okl. 83 , 289 P. 740 (1930); Remick v. Remick, 204 Okl. 345 , 229 P.2d 600 (1951); Clampitt v. Johnson, Okl., 359 P.2d 588 (1961); Application of Price, Okl., 528 P.2d 1107 (1974).

1977Chapman v. Walker, 144 Okl. 83 , 289 P. 740 (1930); Remick v. Remick, 204 Okl. 345 , 229 P.2d 600 (1951); Clampitt v. Johnson, Okl., 359 P.2d 588 (1961); Application of Price, Okl., 528 P.2d 1107 (1974).

1976The Court in Johnson v. Muelberger, 340 U.S. 581 , 71 S.Ct. 474 , 95 L.Ed. 552 (1951) in referring to Sherrer and Coe stated at page 477, it is clear from the foregoing that under our decisions, a state by virtue of the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution, must give full faith and credit to an out-of-state divorce by barring either party to that divorce who has been personally served or has entered a personal appearance from collaterally attacking the decree.

1976The Court in Johnson v. Muelberger, 340 U.S. 581 , 71 S.Ct. 474 , 95 L.Ed. 552 (1951) in referring to Sherrer and Coe stated at page 477, it is clear from the foregoing that under our decisions, a state by virtue of the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution, must give full faith and credit to an out-of-state divorce by barring either party to that divorce who has been personally served or has entered a personal appearance from collaterally attacking the decree.

1974But the child’s welfare in a custody case has such a claim upon the State that its responsibility is obviously not to be foreclosed by a prior adjudication reflecting another State’s discharge of its responsibility at another time.” * * * The syllabus of the court in Aufder Heide v. Kiskaddon, 79 Okl. 6 , 190 P. 859 (1920) cert. denied, 254 U.S. 636 , 41 S.Ct. 9 , 65 L.Ed. 450 holds: “A judgment of a sister state in a divorce proceeding giving the father the right to the care and custody of minor children is not, under the full faith and credit clause of the federal Constitution, binding in a

1974But the child’s welfare in a custody case has such a claim upon the State that its responsibility is obviously not to be foreclosed by a prior adjudication reflecting another State’s discharge of its responsibility at another time.” * * * The syllabus of the court in Aufder Heide v. Kiskaddon, 79 Okl. 6 , 190 P. 859 (1920) cert. denied, 254 U.S. 636 , 41 S.Ct. 9 , 65 L.Ed. 450 holds: “A judgment of a sister state in a divorce proceeding giving the father the right to the care and custody of minor children is not, under the full faith and credit clause of the federal Constitution, binding in a

1974But the child’s welfare in a custody case has such a claim upon the State that its responsibility is obviously not to be foreclosed by a prior adjudication reflecting another State’s discharge of its responsibility at another time.” * * * The syllabus of the court in Aufder Heide v. Kiskaddon, 79 Okl. 6 , 190 P. 859 (1920) cert. denied, 254 U.S. 636 , 41 S.Ct. 9 , 65 L.Ed. 450 holds: “A judgment of a sister state in a divorce proceeding giving the father the right to the care and custody of minor children is not, under the full faith and credit clause of the federal Constitution, binding in a

1966In that case, the U. S. Supreme Court was in effect invited to overrule either one of two of its prior decisions (Barber v. Barber, 21 How. 582 , 16 L.Ed. 226 , and Lynde v. Lynde, 181 U.S. 183 , 187, 21 S.Ct. 555 , 45 L.Ed. 810, 814 ) which were allegedly in conflict.

1966In that case, the U. S. Supreme Court was in effect invited to overrule either one of two of its prior decisions (Barber v. Barber, 21 How. 582 , 16 L.Ed. 226 , and Lynde v. Lynde, 181 U.S. 183 , 187, 21 S.Ct. 555 , 45 L.Ed. 810, 814 ) which were allegedly in conflict.

1966In that case, the U. S. Supreme Court was in effect invited to overrule either one of two of its prior decisions (Barber v. Barber, 21 How. 582 , 16 L.Ed. 226 , and Lynde v. Lynde, 181 U.S. 183 , 187, 21 S.Ct. 555 , 45 L.Ed. 810, 814 ) which were allegedly in conflict.

1966In that case, the U. S. Supreme Court was in effect invited to overrule either one of two of its prior decisions (Barber v. Barber, 21 How. 582 , 16 L.Ed. 226 , and Lynde v. Lynde, 181 U.S. 183 , 187, 21 S.Ct. 555 , 45 L.Ed. 810, 814 ) which were allegedly in conflict.

1966Sistare v. Sistare, 218 U.S. 1 , 30 S.Ct. 682 , 54 L.Ed. 905 , 28 L.R.A,N.S., 1068, 20 Ann.Cas. 1061, is not authority for the proposition that all foreign child support decrees are enforceable in the forum state under the full faith and credit clause.

1966Sistare v. Sistare, 218 U.S. 1 , 30 S.Ct. 682 , 54 L.Ed. 905 , 28 L.R.A,N.S., 1068, 20 Ann.Cas. 1061, is not authority for the proposition that all foreign child support decrees are enforceable in the forum state under the full faith and credit clause.

1966Thus, as recently as in 1941 the Supreme Court said: “Where this Court has required the state of the forum to apply the foreign law under the full faith and credit clause or under the Fourteenth Amendment, it has recognized that a state is not required to enforce a law obnoxious to its public policy.” Griffin v. McCroach, 313 U.S. 498, p. 507 , 61 S.Ct. 1023, p. 1027 , 85 L.Ed. 1481 .

1966Thus, as recently as in 1941 the Supreme Court said: “Where this Court has required the state of the forum to apply the foreign law under the full faith and credit clause or under the Fourteenth Amendment, it has recognized that a state is not required to enforce a law obnoxious to its public policy.” Griffin v. McCroach, 313 U.S. 498, p. 507 , 61 S.Ct. 1023, p. 1027 , 85 L.Ed. 1481 .

1966In Gard v. Gard, 150 Tex. 347 , 241 S.W.2d 618 , the Supreme Court of Texas, construing an Idaho divorce decree, held fhát matured payments for child support became “absolute, vested and protected by the full faith and credit clause of the federal constitution”.

1966In Gard v. Gard, 150 Tex. 347 , 241 S.W.2d 618 , the Supreme Court of Texas, construing an Idaho divorce decree, held fhát matured payments for child support became “absolute, vested and protected by the full faith and credit clause of the federal constitution”.

1966Divorce § 381, p. 884, the rule is stated as follows: “Accrued installments of alimony due under the decree of a foreign court are protected as final judgments under the full faith and credit clause and may not be modified in another state.” In Cogswell v. Cogswell, 178 Or. 417 , 167 P.2d 324 , the Oregon Court said: “The unpaid matured installments of alimony awarded by California court in divorce decree are not subject to rescission or modification, and such decree is protected by the full faith and credit clause of the federal Constitution.” Defendant contends that recovery of a portion of

1966Divorce § 381, p. 884, the rule is stated as follows: “Accrued installments of alimony due under the decree of a foreign court are protected as final judgments under the full faith and credit clause and may not be modified in another state.” In Cogswell v. Cogswell, 178 Or. 417 , 167 P.2d 324 , the Oregon Court said: “The unpaid matured installments of alimony awarded by California court in divorce decree are not subject to rescission or modification, and such decree is protected by the full faith and credit clause of the federal Constitution.” Defendant contends that recovery of a portion of

1966In Stout v. Stout, Tex.Civ.App., 214 S.W.2d 891 , error refused, the Court held that past due installments on a Louisiana judgment for alimony and child support were final and entitled to full faith and credit in a Texas action on the judgment, notwithstanding the Louisiana statute authorized the annulment or amendment of judgments for alimony.

1966In Stout v. Stout, Tex.Civ.App., 214 S.W.2d 891 , error refused, the Court held that past due installments on a Louisiana judgment for alimony and child support were final and entitled to full faith and credit in a Texas action on the judgment, notwithstanding the Louisiana statute authorized the annulment or amendment of judgments for alimony.

1960Respondent cites In re McMenamin, Okl., 277 P.2d 120 , and other cases in which we have held: “A judgment of a sister state in a divorce proceeding giving the mother custody of a minor daughter, is not, under the full faith and credit clause of the Federal Constitution, binding in a habeas corpus proceeding upon the courts of this State, to which the child and mother removed and where they have taken up their domicile.

1958The opinion in Ex parte Miller, supra, cites Heide v. Kiskaddon, 79 Okl. 6 , 190 P. 859 ; Gaunt v. Gaunt, 160 Okl. 195 , 16 P.2d 579 , and states: “The foregoing cases are also authority for the rule that a judgment of a sister state in a divorce proceeding, awarding the care and custody of a minor child, is not, under the full faith and credit clause of the Federal Constitution, Article 4, § 1, binding in a habeas corpus proceeding upon the *1048 courts in this state, to which either parent has removed.” Hatcher v. Hatcher, 206 Okl. 471 , 244 P.2d 580 , holds under the facts there shown that

1958The opinion in Ex parte Miller, supra, cites Heide v. Kiskaddon, 79 Okl. 6 , 190 P. 859 ; Gaunt v. Gaunt, 160 Okl. 195 , 16 P.2d 579 , and states: “The foregoing cases are also authority for the rule that a judgment of a sister state in a divorce proceeding, awarding the care and custody of a minor child, is not, under the full faith and credit clause of the Federal Constitution, Article 4, § 1, binding in a habeas corpus proceeding upon the *1048 courts in this state, to which either parent has removed.” Hatcher v. Hatcher, 206 Okl. 471 , 244 P.2d 580 , holds under the facts there shown that

1958The opinion in Ex parte Miller, supra, cites Heide v. Kiskaddon, 79 Okl. 6 , 190 P. 859 ; Gaunt v. Gaunt, 160 Okl. 195 , 16 P.2d 579 , and states: “The foregoing cases are also authority for the rule that a judgment of a sister state in a divorce proceeding, awarding the care and custody of a minor child, is not, under the full faith and credit clause of the Federal Constitution, Article 4, § 1, binding in a habeas corpus proceeding upon the *1048 courts in this state, to which either parent has removed.” Hatcher v. Hatcher, 206 Okl. 471 , 244 P.2d 580 , holds under the facts there shown that

1958The opinion in Ex parte Miller, supra, cites Heide v. Kiskaddon, 79 Okl. 6 , 190 P. 859 ; Gaunt v. Gaunt, 160 Okl. 195 , 16 P.2d 579 , and states: “The foregoing cases are also authority for the rule that a judgment of a sister state in a divorce proceeding, awarding the care and custody of a minor child, is not, under the full faith and credit clause of the Federal Constitution, Article 4, § 1, binding in a habeas corpus proceeding upon the *1048 courts in this state, to which either parent has removed.” Hatcher v. Hatcher, 206 Okl. 471 , 244 P.2d 580 , holds under the facts there shown that

1953Ed. 1577 : “The full faith and credit clause operates only with respect to judgments rendered by a court whose jurisdiction, either as to the subject matter or person, is not impeached.” “The full faith and credit clause does not make a sister-state judgment a judgment in another state, but to give it that effect, it must be made a judgment there, which can be done only of the court purporting to render the *387 original judgment had power to pass on the merits.” Defendant here asserts that our former decisions in Allen v. Allen, 196 Okla. 36 , 162 P. 2d 193 , and Allen v. Allen, 201 Okla. 442

1953Ed. 1577 : “The full faith and credit clause operates only with respect to judgments rendered by a court whose jurisdiction, either as to the subject matter or person, is not impeached.” “The full faith and credit clause does not make a sister-state judgment a judgment in another state, but to give it that effect, it must be made a judgment there, which can be done only of the court purporting to render the *387 original judgment had power to pass on the merits.” Defendant here asserts that our former decisions in Allen v. Allen, 196 Okla. 36 , 162 P. 2d 193 , and Allen v. Allen, 201 Okla. 442

1953Ed. 1577 : “The full faith and credit clause operates only with respect to judgments rendered by a court whose jurisdiction, either as to the subject matter or person, is not impeached.” “The full faith and credit clause does not make a sister-state judgment a judgment in another state, but to give it that effect, it must be made a judgment there, which can be done only of the court purporting to render the *387 original judgment had power to pass on the merits.” Defendant here asserts that our former decisions in Allen v. Allen, 196 Okla. 36 , 162 P. 2d 193 , and Allen v. Allen, 201 Okla. 442

1953Ed. 1577 : “The full faith and credit clause operates only with respect to judgments rendered by a court whose jurisdiction, either as to the subject matter or person, is not impeached.” “The full faith and credit clause does not make a sister-state judgment a judgment in another state, but to give it that effect, it must be made a judgment there, which can be done only of the court purporting to render the *387 original judgment had power to pass on the merits.” Defendant here asserts that our former decisions in Allen v. Allen, 196 Okla. 36 , 162 P. 2d 193 , and Allen v. Allen, 201 Okla. 442

1949Of the cases cited by the defendant, only the case of Yarborough v. Yarborough, 290 U.S. 202 , 78 P. Ed. 269, upon which defendant greatly relies, need be considered, but is readily distinguishable from the instant case.