 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bell v. Smith2/4/1992
The opinion of the court was delivered by: JONES, Judge.
Appellant, Darrel D. Bell, brings this appeal from the District Court's denial of his Motion for an order requiring Appellee, C. Ray Smith, to pay installment payments on Bell's previously granted judgment.
While Bell was employed with Smith, he filed a Workers' Compensation claim for a back injury and was awarded benefits totalling $28,697.01. The award was upheld by a three judge panel. Neither Smith nor Transcare has ever made a payment on the award. On this basis, the Workers' Compensation Court accelerated the debt and certified the case to the District Court in Pittsburg County pursuant to 85 O.S. § 42 and Rule 26 of the Rules for Workers' Compensation Court which authorizes the claimant to file a final judgment as a lien on the property of C. Ray Smith. The Appellant initiated this action in the District Court as a proceeding in aid of execution on September 29, 1989. On November 8, 1989, the Court issued its order requiring Smith to show cause why he should not be ordered to pay the debt in installments. Smith was further ordered to produce records of property, stocks, bonds, salary or other income, both business and personal as well as bank statements, income tax returns and accounting records. The hearing was held on May 9, 1989. The District Court overruled Bell's Motion for failure to meet his burden of proof. Bell objects to the Court's ruling, claiming the judgment was against the clear weight of the evidence and was improper in the law.
On appeal from an order refusing to enforce a judgment, the Court of Appeals will examine the record and weigh the evidence as in a case of equitable cognizance and will reverse the judgment if it is clearly against the weight of the evidence or contrary to law. See ITT Financial Services v. Powell, 794 P.2d 768 (Okl.App. 1990). We find both errors existed at the trial court and reverse the decision.
Appellee claims he has no earnings from which to pay the judgment. However, the testimony at the hearing shows that for three years preceding the hearing, the Appellee and his wife, Pamela Smith, earned the following salaries:
Year Mr. Smith Mrs. Smith Total Family Income:
1988 $39,808 $ 5,192 $45,000
1989 $45,000 0 $45,000
1990 0 $43,500 $43,500
Shortly after Appellee received notice that Appellant filed for certification to the District Court for listing on its judgment docket, he ceased to draw a salary from the business, even though he was the president of CSR Coach and continued to render services for the company. Subsequently, Pamela Smith began to receive a salary approximating the amount Appellee once earned, as payment for "handling all the paper work and performing secretarial duties." Family income remained the same as before. Even though Appellee had no savings, no checking account, and no car in his name, his minor children owned trust accounts, savings accounts and corporate stock. Even Appellee's mother owned some corporate stock. Pamela Smith owned 80% of the corporate stock while Appellee owned between 6 to 8%. Additionally, the company's accountant, Mr. Hill, testified that Appellee was usually in the office when he was present.
Where the judgment debtor is rendering services to a corporation owned or controlled by a relative without salary or compensation, the court may direct him to make installment payments based upon the reasonable value of the services rendered. See 12 O.S. 1910 § 850 . The evidence on the record shows that Appellant met his burden of proof in this regard. The burden of proof was
Page 1 2 Oklahoma Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|