White v. White

California Supreme Court Dec 6, 1900 No. S.F. No. 1380.Published

Before: Van Dyke

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the order directing the issuance of a writ of assistance was void because the underlying order of sale was made without jurisdiction, as the court's authority over the subject matter was exhausted upon the entry of the final money judgment.

Issues

Whether the court had jurisdiction to appoint a receiver and order the sale of property to satisfy a simple money judgment after final judgment was entered.
Whether the court retained jurisdiction to issue a writ of assistance after the final judgment had been rendered.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Any new duties conferred upon him by the judgment were in excess of the jurisdiction of the court, whose power to appoint a receiver exists only in the cases prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure”

“The provision has no application to a simple money judgment; in such case the writ of execution furnishes an amply sufficient remedy, and is the only means provided.”

“After final judgment any further judgment, or order materially varying the judgment, is a mere nullity.”

Synopsis

Divorce—Alimony—Money Judgment—Execution.—A final decree of divorce granted to the wife containing judgment in her favor for permanent alimony in a single sum of money can only be regarded as an ordinary money judgment, to be enforced by writ of execution against the property of the husband.

Id.—Receiver Appointed Pendente Lite—Cessation of Functions.— The functions of a receiver appointed pending an action for divorce who took possession of no property before the judgment, terminated with the entry of the judgment.

Id.—Continuance of Receiver After Judgment—Jurisdiction—Void Sale and Deed—Writ of Assistance.—The court had no jurisdiction, after the entry of the money judgment in such action, to continue the receiver for the purpose of enforcing the judgment; and a sale made hy such receiver of the property of the husband, and a deed thereof made by him to the wife, are void and cannot justify a writ of assistance to the wife as purchaser.

Id.—Construction of Code—Receiver to Enforce Judgment.—The power given under subdivision 3 of section 564 of the Code of Civil Procedure to appoint a receiver, “after judgment, to carry the judgment into effect,” is to be construed as applying only to cases where the judgment affects specific property, and not as applicable to the case of an ordinary judgment for money, which may be enforced by execution.

Id.—Conclusiveness of Final Judgment—Power not Reserved.—A final judgment in an action for divorce, in which no power is reserved to render any further relief, is conclusive of the rights of the parties, as to the relief granted, as well as to the relief • withheld. The court, in such case, is without jurisdiction to render any other or further judgment or relief in the action.

VAN DYKE, J.

Appeal by the defendant Rohrbough from an order made on the application of the defendant, Frankie White, directing the issue of a writ of assistance. The cas'e, stripped of immaterial circumstances, is this:

In a suit brought by the plaintiff against the defendant, Mrs. White—in which she had filed a cross-complaint—an interlocutory judgment was entered in her favor for divorce; and afterward, February 9, 1895, a final judgment for one hundred thousand dollars.

A receiver had been previously appointed to take charge of plaintiff’s property, though in fact he had not taken any of it into possession. By the final judgment the receivership was continued with authority and direction to the receiver to prosecute suits and "take any and all legal measures and proceedings to enforce and secure the collection of the unpaid monthly allowance theretofore awarded, 'etc., and also the said sum of one hundred thousand dollars awarded (to the defendant) by said final decree.”

Afterward, April 12, 1895, an order was made directing the receiver to sell property of plaintiff, including the lands now in question, tinder this order the property was sold by the receiver to Mrs. White, to whom, after confirmation by the court, it was conveyed August 13, 1896. Subsequently, she

[599]

applied to the court for a writ of assistance to obtain possession of the land, and thereupon the order appealed from was made. At the time of the sale by the receiver the appellant Rohrbough was in possession of the lands in question under leases from the plaintiff, which expired pending the application for the writ of assistance.

The question involved is as to the jurisdiction of the court to make the order of sale of July 17, 1895; and we are of the opinion that this cannot be sustained.

The judgment in the case is not in any way affected by the provision as to the receiver. The receiver had not taken possession of any property;, and the object of his original appointment, and the functions originally vested in him, terminated with the entry of the judgment. Any new duties conferred upon him by the judgment were in excess of the jurisdiction of the court, whose power to appoint a receiver exists only in the cases prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure,» section 564—of which this is not one.

White v. White

AI Brief

Synopsis

VAN DYKE, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief