Elliott v. Wohlfrom

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1880 No. No. 6,457Published

Before: Sharpstein

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A party who obtains a divorce judgment through fraud cannot collaterally attack that judgment to recover property, nor can their successor in interest, especially against a defendant who was a stranger to the divorce proceedings and had no notice of the fraud.

Issues

Whether a party who obtains a divorce judgment by fraud may collaterally attack that judgment to recover property.
Whether a successor in interest to a party who obtained a divorce judgment by fraud stands in a better position to challenge the validity of that judgment than the original party.
Whether a stranger to a divorce judgment, without notice of alleged fraud, is bound by the judgment as it appears on its face.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We know of no principle upon which the plaintiff in that action of divorce could be permitted to impeach the judgment rendered in it, for the purpose of recovering property from the defendant in that action which he could recover on no other ground”

“There is a maxim of law that “ No man should take advantage of his own wrong.” It seems to us that that maxim has been violated in this case.”

“Fraud renders any transaction voidable at the election of the party defrauded. But we have yet to learn that the party by whom the fraud is perpetrated has that election.”

Synopsis

Divorce — Fraudulent Judgment — Appearance — Estoppel — Common Property.—In an action of ejectment, in which both parties deraigned title under a deed executed May 15th, 1865, for valuable consideration, to one Amanda C., the defendant by a deed direct from her, and the plaintiff by a deed from J. C.—formerly her husband—the case turned upon the validity of a judgment of divorce rendered J une 23rd, 1864, in a case brought by J. G. against Amanda C., in the State of Indiana, in which the latter appeared by attorney; but it appeared that the appearance of the attorney was without her knowledge or- consent. Held, that the judgment was not void, but, at most, only voidable at her instance, and that it could not be attacked by her husband or his grantee.

Id.—Ebaud.—Eraud renders any transaction void at the election of the party defrauded; but the party by whom the fraud is perpetrated has not that election.

Sharpstein, J.: This appeal is from a judgment and order denying a motion for a new trial in an action of ejectment. The appellant claims title under and from Mrs. Amanda J. Bingham, and the respondent claims under title deraigned from James S. Chandler.

The land was unsurveyed, and belonged to the Government of the United States until February, 1864.

In 1855 the said James S. Chandler and the said Mrs. Amanda J. Bingham were married to each other, and settled upon the land in controversy, and occupied the same in connection with other lands until February, 1864, about which time it was surveyed by [386]the Government, and became subject to pre-emption; and on the 18th of that month the said James S. Chandler left the premises and never returned to occupy them ; never filed a declaratory statement, and did not take any steps whatever to procure a title to the land from the Government or otherwise.

On the 21st day of April, 1864, the said James S. Chandler filed a complaint for a divorce against his wife Amanda J. Chandler, (now Amanda J. Bingham) in the Court of Common Pleas of the State of Indiana, within and for Allen County of that State, and on the 23rd day of J une, 1864, the said Amanda Chandler appeared, in said court by her attorney, and answered the complaint so filed by a general denial, and during the same term of said court the bonds of matrimony then existing between said James S. Chandler and said Amanda J. were dissolved. It was proved by the respondent, against appellant’s objection, that the attorney who appeared for the said Amanda J. in the suit for a divorce in the State of Indiana had no authority from her to appear for her in that proceeding, and that in fact she had no knowledge of the proceedings.

On the 25th day of October, 1864, the said Amanda J. Chandler commenced a suit for a divorce against the said James S. Chandler in the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District of the State of California, within and for the County of Yolo, and for cause of action against James S. Chandler alleged adultery with one Sarah Chandler, and alleged no other cause of action. These proceedings were pending until the 18th day of March, 1867, at which time a decree of divorce was granted in said suit, but the decree is silent as to any disposition of the community property.

During the pendency of the suit in Yolo County, one Francis Marion Elliott obtained title to the land in controversy from the Government of the United States, obtaining a patent therefor bearing date June 15th, 1876, and during the pendency of the same suit, May 15th, 1865, the said Francis Marion Elliott sold the premises to the said Amanda J. Chandler.

Elliott v. Wohlfrom

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief