American Guaranty Investment Corp. v. Shallcross

1986 OK 71, 727 P.2d 1364, 1986 Okla. LEXIS 192
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedNovember 18, 1986
DocketNo. 67186
StatusPublished

This text of 1986 OK 71 (American Guaranty Investment Corp. v. Shallcross) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
American Guaranty Investment Corp. v. Shallcross, 1986 OK 71, 727 P.2d 1364, 1986 Okla. LEXIS 192 (Okla. 1986).

Opinion

OP ALA, Justice.

The question before us in this original action is whether proceedings to inquire into a judgment debtor’s assets under the authority of 12 O.S.1981 § 8421 may be predicated upon a tax warrant issued by the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission [Commission] pursuant to the provisions of 40 O.S.1981 § 3-501.2 We assume original cognizance to answer this question in the affirmative by denying the taxpayer’s petition for a writ of prohibition.

The underlying dispute had its genesis in the Commission’s issuance of a tax warrant pursuant to the authority conferred on it by the terms of 40 O.S.1981 § 3-501. The warrant reflects American Guaranty Investment Corporation’s [AGIO] tax delinquency in the amount of $1,369.68. The [1365]*1365Commission then sought to compel AGIO to appear and to answer as to its assets. AGIO attempted to quash the process served upon it on the grounds that the tax warrant did not have the same force as a judgment and the Commission hence lacked power to secure a taxpayer’s disclosure of assets. The trial court ruled in favor of the Commission by refusing to quash the order. AGIO now proceeds to invoke this court’s original jurisdiction for extraordinary relief from the trial court’s ruling requiring its appearance at the hearing on assets.

The explicit provisions of 40 O.S.1981 §§ 3-502 and 3-504,3 when construed together with the plain terms of 40 O.S. Supp.1982 § 3-503,4 provide a convincing textual demonstration of the legislative intent to make the § 3-501 warrants legally sufficient for issuance of an execution against the taxpayer-debtor in the very same manner as though they were judgments rendered by a court of record. It suffices to say that these warrants, when filed in the office of the county clerk, stand statutorily established as a lien on the debt- or’s property and are unaffected by the dormancy provisions applicable to other judgments by force of 12 O.S.1981 § 735.5

We hence hold that, within the meaning of 12 O.S.1981 § 842, [1] the § 3-501 warrants possess all the necessary attributes of, and must hence be recognized as, the functional equivalent of a judgment rendered by a court of record, [2] delinquent taxpayers named in these warrants stand— vis-a-vis the Commission — in the same status as judgment debtors and [3] although Wheeler v. State6 — which holds that a Commission tax warrant is to be treated “the same as a judgment” — is grounded in part on statutory material no longer in force, its continued vitality remains unimpaired by the text of the currently effective enactments that regulate the legal effect of the § 3-501 warrants.7

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ASSUMED; WRIT DENIED.

DOOLIN, V.C.J., and LAVENDER, KAUGER and SUMMERS, JJ., concur. SIMMS, C.J., and HODGES, HAR-GRAVE and ALMA WILSON, JJ., dissent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Wheeler v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Employment Security Commission
1983 OK 71 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1986 OK 71, 727 P.2d 1364, 1986 Okla. LEXIS 192, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-guaranty-investment-corp-v-shallcross-okla-1986.