MAULDIN VS. MAULDIN (CHILD SUPPORT)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court affirmed an order setting aside as void an execution sale of the husband's real property, purchased by the wife under a writ of execution, on the ground that the underlying child-support arrearage judgment had been fully satisfied. Citing Walker v. Shrake, 75 Nev. 241, 339 P.2d 124 (1959), the court reiterated that a sale under a judgment that has been satisfied is void and conveys no title even though the satisfaction was never entered of record, and that this is particularly true where the purchaser had notice of the payment and prior satisfaction - as the wife did here, having signed the 1967 agreement accepting the check as 'final payment.' The wife's conclusory, unspecified allegation that she had been fraudulently induced to sign the satisfaction agreement, unsupported by any facts in her affidavit, furnished no basis for a new hearing or to disturb the district court's ruling. Affirmed.

In plain language

After their 1960 divorce, the husband owed child support. In 1964 the wife obtained a judgment against him for $5,220 in unpaid support plus a $350 attorney fee. He paid part of it, and in 1967 the two signed a notarized agreement in which the wife accepted a check as 'final payment' in full satisfaction of the remaining balance; she cashed the check, but the satisfaction was never formally entered in the court file. Two and a half years later, without notifying the husband, the wife used the still-open court judgment to obtain a writ of execution and had the sheriff sell the husband's real property at an execution sale - to herself - for $1,000. When the husband learned of the sale, he moved to set it aside, presenting the 1967 agreement and the cancelled check. The trial court found the judgment had in fact been satisfied and declared the sale void. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed: a sale under a judgment that has already been satisfied is void and passes no title, even if the satisfaction was never entered of record - and this is especially true where the buyer (here, the wife) had notice that the judgment had been paid. The wife's vague, unspecified claim that the husband had fraudulently induced her to sign the 1967 agreement was unsupported by any facts and provided no basis to disturb the ruling.