OCR Text |
Show MONDAY. MARCH 6, 1972 THE DAILY Divorces Granted District Court Judgments 202108 - Mabey, Bradford & Marsden vs JAMES H. TOLHURST 5453 - David Charles Raws on vs Tamra Bingham Raws on Pltf$745.41; $168.00; $29.30; 228 795 - Valley Bank 203164 Co. vs vs Paulos WILLIAM WELLINGTON 219.84; $26.40; 228 Pltf$1, MYRTLE MOHLER AND - Marie Vigil and State of Utah vs FRANK' TONY Pltf$16, 800.00 200891 - Bank of Salt Jeffrey Smith Anderson 3325 So. 1940 West, Granger (20) to Carol Ann Galloway 710 Hawthorne (18) Lake BENNIE MORINAGA DBA UNIVERSAL MOTORCYCLES ; Pltf $5,140.50; $214.20; $929.39 228 ($192.20; costs) Barry Carl Jensen,- 2626 Wellington (25) to Vicki Lee Waterlyn 3236 Upland (20) 197701 - Leslie Val Wilson vs Willard Noal Woodhead 203247 Ronald Ellas Demos, 1469 W. 7800 So. West Jordan (19) to Karla Rayleen Pettit 9370 So 13th West Riverton (18) 761.32; $52.00; 229 - Joyce Sargent vs et al LARSEN FORD SALES, INC, Judgment in favor of defend- ant; $472.03; $174.00; $10.00 229 Christen Mark Eldredge, 946 Windsor St. (22) to Catherine 203292 - S libers Inc. vs MOUNTAIN (19) SL vs Co. HRABAN; of Pltf 229 202542 - Ins ul -- Guard Corpn FORBUSH; $80.00; $30.50; 229 203488 vs Pltf$177 - Atlas Copco Inc. CORPORATION; $26.00; 229 Pltf$1,128.73; . William Gerold Grimes, Jr. 1555 E. 3900 So. (23) to Janet Lucille Stevenson, 2398 So. Temple (25) 6378 - Carol Sanslov vs Terry Lee Sans low - Faye Irene Hedges vs Clifford Charles Hedges Jerry Kendall Jacobson Hender- son vs David Michael Henderson - Evelyn . 6395 The order of the trial court is affirmed. plaintiff. - Lillie Parkin 0'Very Also see 88 A. L. R. , Anno: Judgment -- Validity - Unauthorized Appearance, IX, p. 69: "Where the court acquires jurisdiction of the defendant by service of process or legal notice upon him, the judgment is not ordinarily subject to attack on the ground that the defendant's appearance was entered by an attorney without authority ..." Small Claims Court - Elliot Bressler vs DONALD E. DRAGS; ioho Damage 29389 - J. Lynn Welch etc vs TOM COLEMAN; vs Harold J. O' Very - - Stephen J. Mitchell vs Rita Mitchell 6396 6397 - Karen Marie Cochuvella vs John Mark Cochuvella - Dennis H. Wright vs Tamara C. Wright 63V8 6399 - Meryle Lynn Patrick Paxman vs Elms Sudbury Paxman 55982 INC. 82 FEDERAL' SECURITY DEVICE W George L Dr, SLC; Louise, SLC. Pres 1268 Garnett Mauldlng, Noel B Mauldlng, Same; Robt S Jenson, 171 Av, SLC. Westminister 55983 - ROD BROUGH, INC. 40 E 1100 S, Bntfl. H Rodney Brough 40 E 1100 S, Bntfl; Alma P 3 rough, Same; James R Brough, 3130 S 3 140 W. SLC. 29390 Cream IMS mmmmm MANHARD;Pltf 29391 - Malcolm vs PILOT Petrie C. TITANIUM due - Aetna Finance vs MICHAEL D. ONES TO; $117.80; bal due - Sears M. Co Pltf Roebuck Co & vs LUIS M. AMADOR; $194.15; bal - Co CORPN Pltf F. Sutherland vs KINE KINIKINI ; Pltf$64.43; labor and material J SiSBESinaS wmmmm&f 29395 - Bryce COLOR TILE OF UTAH; M. Pltf $197.31; overcharge 29396 - Allens Ladies Store vs R. R. MARTIN; Pltf$144.91 bal due 2437- - FABIAN BENEDICT DBA SEWING MACHINE Glendale - Cal Callahan vs 554 Ronald S. Christensen etux to Aetna Finance $5112. 00 EARL SARGENT Pltf$180.00; damages Westward Terrace 29400 - Household Finance Co vs MILES G. KAY; Pltf$200.00 $23 19. 25 - Gene Austin vs 562 Frances M. Hickey to Edna M. Mize $24500. 00 ARTHUR PRICE DBA A & E AUTO ELECTRIC; Pltf$39.00; generator repair 29402 - Vulcan Credit vs GORDON JOHANSEN; bal due 29404 j 563 Pltf$100 J. . D. Greenhalgh JONES; damaga - Gary Pearson vs BRENT ASHWORTH; auto damages ROSS Pltf$59.41 Homer H, Lemon etux to. Metropolitan Fin. $3264.00 Rambler Heights Un. 604 - David vs WILLIAM $144.40 2 555 Aaron V. Adamson etux to Insurance Thrift Agency bal due 29401 Mortgages 552 Mary Evelyn Howe to Aetna Finance Co. $1500.00 CO Pltf$150.00; repairs M. Stephen Rideout etux to Edna W. Wade $10 610 Afton B. Isaac to Howard M. Tuttle etux $14000. 00 Ha warden Estates 5 615 John C. Kittridge etux to Harold S. Greenleaf etux. $iooaoo I 1 I Mark Taylor vs WILLIAM 29403 Sing ley vs damages OFFICE SUPPLY; Pltf$127.53; repairs STEPHEN Pltf$200.00; bal 29392 ALLSTEEL 29399 $28.90; bal due 29405 - Joan Marie Hamnett vs Bruce Mac Hand ritf$200. - Jay Warburton dba Warburton's Fendervllle vs 29397 2398 - - Irven Browning dba of Weber vs MR. AND MRS. WALLACE 29394 More Banking For Your Money Pltf$57.60 Parts and service 29393 Ex pe r i eric eli n!B an k i riw Costs are awarded to 3 29388 New Corporations also 0. no connection. Ronald Gene Wylie, 335 E. 3rd So. (23) to Margarete Anna Blshoff, 6908 Columbia Dr. West Jordan (21) M. 1327, 2; his position should not be held worse by an appearance with which he had 3 Ann So. Chapel St.Midv. Paul Kent Blank, 360 W.800 So. Bountiful (18) to Stacey Lynn McCullough, 453 No. 400 E. Bountiful (17) Connell vs Maurice Wesley Connell 6393 24 Steven Earl Becks tead, 2806 So. 1500 E. (23) to Ronda Sue Alvey, 2009 Crystal Ave (16) - Shirleen Jacobson vs - Aleta Kathleen 19-2- (27) - Henrietta Dickinson Tol vs Cyril LeVon Tolman 6377 - Janet Jones Greens Ides vs Ronald James Greens ides (27) to Gloria Midv. Parker, 6374 6394 301-30- Barry Joe Johnson, 129 Pioneer St. 6376 Barron and Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure, p. 413; 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 60. 25 2 , pp. see Restatement, Judgments, 4, pp. 2. 71 Cal. 504, 12 P. 562, 564 (1886). 3 1.- ' Nell Floyd Pettinglll, Ogden (22) to Joyce Davis, 2358 Lambourne Ave (22) 6379 - Ruth C. Hayes vs Daniel L Hayes man In Fitzgerald v. Fefnandez an action to foreclose a mortgage was brought against husband and wife, and process was served upon both. On appeal, it was held that the court had acquired jurisdiction of the person of the wife as well as of the subject matter; and, therefore, the decree of foreclosure entered therein was not void, although the wife did not appear but was represented by an attorney, employed by her husband, without her knowledge or consent. The. court stated that in such a case, if there had been no appearance for her, the plaintiff would have been entitled to a default and decree against her, and that West (17) to Linda Lelsle Bullock 7112 So. 2155 E. (18) Divorces Filed 6375 The concept of a void judgment is narrowly construed in the. interest A judgment is void only if the court which rendered it lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter or of the parties, or if it acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law. Kevin Don Ryver, 620 So. 8th CONTINENTAL GOLD & SILVER . of finality. Michael Dennis Larsen, 18915 2nd E. (23) to Catherine V. Devereaux 267 No. 1450 W. Woods Cross (22) MORGAN DON FORBUSH AND MARGENE Ruth asserts the judgment was void solely on the ground that the appearance of the attorney, employed by her husband, was unauthorized to represent her interests. This ground is insufficient to declare a judgment void. Paul Wendell Forbes, 2020 Lain Dr. (33) to Loy Ann Smith, 731 Lois Circle, Sandy (26) $1,310.77; $25.00; $368.00 vs certain stipulations entered into by the parties were set forth. Defendant, Ruth, filed her motion for relief from the judgment on March 30, 1971. Craig Foster Pickett, 3883 Evelyn Dr. (25) to Virginia Marla Stephens 747 Kensington Ave (21) $200. - Capitol Loan J. of defendants on July 27, 1970. Subsequently, an order was entered on September 19, 1970, wherein the motion for new trial was dismissed and STATES OPTI- Pltf$970.63; $24.00; 229 FRANK trial was held; husband, Robert, was present, and an attorney represented the interests of defendants. On June 16, 1970, a decree was entered in favor of plaintiff. A motion for a new trial was filed on behalf A Sue Clay 2010 E. 34th, Spokane te in Optical CAL INC; 203022 Robert B. Mecham and Ruth W. Mecham are husband and wife. In 1959, they as purchasers entered into a uniform real estate contract with Utah Savings Loan as sellers. Plaintiff initiated an action against Mechams to obtain possession of the real property because of their default in making payments. The complaint and summons were served in accordance with Rule 4 (e) (1), U. R. C. P. , and Ruth concedes that she was legally served and that the court acquired in personam jurisdiction, although she did not have actual knowledge of the action. Her husband, Robert, retained an attorney, who thereafter filed an answer, other pleadings, and appeared in behalf of the Mechams. Marriage Licenses vs Pltf$2, Defendant, Ruth W. Mecham, appeals from an order of the district court denying her motion for relief from a final judgment on the ground that the judgment was void, Rule 60(b) (5), U.R.C. P. i State of Utah vs HICKS; Pltf$256.00; 225 Chief Justice; C A LUSTER, 3414 - Charles Royce Thomaa vs Kay Mennette Smith Thoman 200649 DICK Robert B. Mecham and his wife Ruth W. Mecham, Defendants and Appellants. Papoutsukls 5510 - Eileen Toshiko Hara-guc- hl vs Henry Jochi Haraguchi 153085 225 M. 5234 - Lynn Falrburn vs James William Falrburn Pltf$2,132.23 $528.16; $54.00; 228 DENNY; VIGIL, v. 5631 - Darhl Jean Thompson vs Thomas Gary Thompson - Utah State Emp.Cr. 189062 Un. vs ORVILLE Plaintiff and Respondent, 5590 - Angie Papoutsukls Tr. & W. Smoot Brimhall, Commissioner of Financial Institutions of the State of Utah, - Sherry Wright Morgan 5890 - Mary Roberta Ruth vs Bobby Joe Ruth 228 PAGE THREE In The Supreme Court Of The State Of Utah vs Robert L. Morgan 203754 - Avco Financial Serv of Ogden vs REED HARDING; Pltf$1,048.38; $300.00; $24. RECORD .4 |