Vandervort v. Vandervort
134 P.3d 892, 2005 Okla. Civ. App. LEXIS 131, 2006 OK CIV APP 34 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court of equity may vacate a divorce decree procured through the mutual fraud and collusion of the parties when the fraud constitutes a “fraud on the court,” such as misrepresenting jurisdictional facts and the statutory grounds for divorce, in order to protect the integrity of the judicial process and public policy.
Facts:
- Patricia Vandervort suffered from multiple sclerosis, anticipating a future need for nursing home care.
- Patricia and her husband, Roger Vandervort, agreed to a divorce as an estate planning strategy.
- The plan was for Patricia to divest herself of nearly all marital assets to qualify for social security disability income and Medicaid.
- The parties misrepresented to the court that they were incompatible, while secretly intending to continue living together at their Texas County residence with Roger caring for Patricia.
- Roger Vandervort misrepresented in the divorce petition that he was a resident of Oklahoma County, where the divorce was filed, when both parties actually resided in Texas County.
- After the divorce was granted, the parties' relationship soured, and Patricia ended up living with her parents after Roger allegedly refused to allow her to return to their home.
Procedural Posture:
- Roger Vandervort (Husband) filed a pro se petition for divorce in the District Court of Oklahoma County.
- Patricia Vandervort (Wife) signed an entry of appearance and waiver of summons, and both parties signed a consent decree.
- The trial court entered a decree of divorce.
- Subsequently, Wife filed a motion in the same trial court to vacate the divorce decree.
- The trial court granted Wife's motion, vacating the decree on the ground of fraud and dismissing the case.
- Husband, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a court have the authority to vacate a divorce decree that was procured through the mutual fraud of both parties who colluded to misrepresent their residency and the statutory ground of incompatibility?
Opinions:
Majority - Reif, J.
Yes, a court has the authority to vacate a divorce decree procured through mutual fraud when it constitutes a fraud upon the court. The parties' misrepresentation of residency and their collusion to misrepresent the statutory ground of incompatibility were frauds directly affecting the judicial process. While courts generally leave colluding parties where it finds them, an exception exists when the fraud is a 'concoction' consummated through the court itself, especially when used to deceive public agencies. The state is a silent third party in every divorce, and the court must protect the state's interest and the integrity of justice by not allowing its processes to be used for a fraudulent scheme that offends public policy.
Dissenting - Gabbard, J.
No, a court should not vacate a decree procured through the mutual fraud of both parties. Long-standing Oklahoma precedent holds that when parties collude to obtain a divorce, the court will leave them where it finds them and will not grant equitable relief to a participant in the fraud. The majority's reliance on cases involving one innocent spouse being defrauded is misplaced, as here the Wife was a willing participant in the scheme and only sought to vacate the decree after the post-divorce arrangement soured. The appropriate remedy for Wife may be a separate action to enforce the parties' agreement, not the unwinding of a fraudulent divorce she helped procure.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant public policy exception to the traditional equitable doctrine that a party with 'unclean hands' cannot seek relief from the court. It distinguishes between simple collusion between parties and a more profound 'fraud on the court' that undermines the integrity of the entire judicial process. The court prioritizes its duty to protect itself and the state's interest in the institution of marriage over the rule of leaving fraudulent parties to their own devices. This precedent empowers courts to look beyond the parties' mutual consent to a fraudulent act and to intervene when the act itself subverts justice and public policy, particularly when intended to defraud government benefit programs.
