Void judgments
are those rendered by a court which lacked jurisdiction, either of the
subject matter or the parties. See:
Wahl
v. Round Valley Bank, 38 Ariz. 411, 300 P.955 (1931)
Tube City
Mining & Milling Co. v. Otterson, 16 Ariz. 305, 146 P. 203 (1914)
Milliken v. Meyer,
311 U.S. 457, 61 S.Ct. 339, 85 L.Ed. 2d 278 (1940)
A void
judgment which includes judgment entered by a court which lacks jurisdiction
over the parties or the subject matter, or lacks inherent power to enter
the particular judgment, or an order procured by fraud, can be attacked
at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided
that the party is properly before the court. See Long v. Shorebank
Development Corp., 182 F.3d 548 (C.A. 7 Ill. 1999)
A void
judgment is one which, from its inception, was a complete nullity and
without legal effect. See Lubben v. Selective Service System Local
Bd. No. 27, 453 F.2d 645, 14 A.L.R. Fed. 298 (C.A. 1 Mass. 1972)
A void
judgment is one which from the beginning was complete nullity and without
any legal effect. See Hobbs v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management,
485 F.Supp. 456 (M.D. Fla. 1980).
Void judgment
is one that, from its inception, is complete nullity and without legal
effect. Holstein v. City of Chicago, 803 F.Supp. 205, reconsideration
denied 149 F.R.D. 147, affirmed 29 F.3d 1145 (N.D. Ill. 1992).
Void judgment
is one where court lacked personal or subject matter jurisdiction or
entry of order violated due process, U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5-Triad
Energy Corp. v. McNell, 110 F.R.D. 382 (S.D.N.Y. 1986).
Judgment
is a void judgment if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction
of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent
with due process,
Fed Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 60(b)(4), 28 U.S.C.A.; U.S.C.A. Const
Amend. 5. Klugh v. U.S., 620 F.Supp. 892 (D.S.C. 1985).
A void
judgment is one which, from its inception, was a complete nullity and
without legal effect, Rubin v. Johns, 109 F.R.D. 174 (D. Virgin Islands
1985).
A void
judgment is one which, from its inception, is and forever continues
to be absolutely null, without legal efficacy, ineffectual to bind the
parties or to support a right, of no legal force and effect whatever,
and incapable of enforcement in any manner or to any degree. Loyd
v. Director, Dept. of Public Safety, 480 So.2d 577 (Ala.Civ.App. 1985).
A judgment shown by evidence to be invalid for want of jurisdiction
is a void judgment or at all events has all attributes of a void judgment,
City of Los Angeles v. Morgan, 234 P.2d 319 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 1951).
Void judgment
which is subject to collateral attack, is simulated judgment devoid
of any potency because of jurisdictional defects, Ward. v. Terriere,
386 P.2d 352 (Colo. 1963). A void judgment is a simulated judgment
devoid of any potency because of jurisdictional defects only, in the
court rendering it and defect of jurisdiction may relate to a party
or parties, the subject matter, the cause of action, the question to
be determined, or relief to be granted, Davidson Chevrolet, Inc. v.
City and County of Denver, 330 P.2d 1116, certiorari denied 79 S.Ct.
609,
359 U.S. 926, 3 L.Ed. 2d 629 (Colo. 1958).
Void judgment
is one entered by court without jurisdiction of parties or subject matter
or that lacks inherent power to make or enter particular order involved
and such a judgment may be attacked at any time, either directly or
collaterally, People v. Wade, 506 N.W.2d 954 (Ill. 1987).
Void judgment
may be defined as one in which rendering court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction, lacked personal jurisdiction, or acted in manner inconsistent
with due process of law Eckel v. MacNeal, 628 N.E.2d 741 (Ill. App.Dist.
1993).
Void judgment
is one entered by court without jurisdiction of parties or subject matter
or that lacks inherent power to make or enter particular order involved;
such judgment may be attacked at any time, either directly or collaterally
People v. Sales, 551 N.E.2d 1359 (Ill.App. 2 Dist. 1990).
Res judicata
consequences will not be applied to a void judgment which is one which,
from its inception, is a complete nullity and without legal effect,
Allcock v. Allcock, 437 N.E.2d 392 (Ill.App.3 Dist. 1982).
Void judgment
is one which, from its inception is complete nullity and without legal
effect In re Marriage of Parks, 630 N.E.2d 509 (Ill.App. 5 Dist.
1994).
Void judgment
is one entered by court that lacks the inherent power to make or enter
the particular order involved, and it may be attacked at any time, either
directly or collaterally; such a judgment would be a nullity.
People v. Rolland, 581 N.E.2d 907 (Ill.APp. 4 Dist. 1991).
Void judgment
under federal law is one in which rendering court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction over dispute or jurisdiction over parties or acted in manner
inconsistent with due process of law or otherwise acted unconstitutionally
in entering judgment, U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5, Hays v. Louisiana Dock
Co., 452 N.E.2d 1383 (Ill App. 5 Dist. 1983).
A void
judgment has no effect whatsoever and is incapable of confirmation or
ratification, Lucas v. Estate of Stavos, 609 N.E.2d 1114, rehearing
denied, and transfer denied (Ind. App. 1 Dist. 1993).
Void judgment
is one that from its inception is a complete nullity and without legal
effect Stidham v. Whelchel, 698 N.E.2d 1152 (Ind. 1998).
Relief
from void judgment is available when trial court lacked either personal
or subject matter jurisdiction, Dusenberry v. Dusenberry, 625 N.E.2d
458 (Ind.App. 1 Dist. 1993).
Void judgment
is one rendered by court which lacked personal or subject matter jurisdiction
or acted in manner inconsistent with due process, U.S.C.A. Const. Amends.
5, 14, Matter of Marriage of Hampshire, 896 P.2d 58 (Kan.1997)
Judgment
is void if court that rendered it lacked personal or subject matter
jurisdiction; void judgment is nullity and may be vacated at any time,
Matter of Marriage of Welliver, 869 P.2d 653 (Kan. 1994).
A void
judgment is one rendered by a a court which lacked personal or subject
matter jurisdiction or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process,
In re. Estate of Wells, 983 P.2d 279, (Kan.App. 1999).
Void judgment
is one rendered in absence of jurisdiction over subject matter or parties,
310 N.W.2d 502, (Minn. 1981).
A void
judgment is one rendered in absence of jurisdiction over subject matter
or parties, Lange v. Johnson, 204 N.W.2d 205 (Minn. 1973).
A void
judgment is one which has merely semblance, without some essential element,
as when court purporting to render it has no jurisdiction, Mills v.
Richardson, 81S.E.2d 409 (N.C. 1954).
A void
judgment is one which has a mere semblance, but is lacking in some of
the essential elements which would authorize the court to proceed to
judgment, Henderson v. Henderson, 59 S.E.2d 227, (N.C. 1950).
Void judgment
is one entered by court without jurisdiction to enter such judgment,
State v. Blankenship, 675 N.E.2d 1303, (Ohio App. 9 Dist. 1996).
Void judgment,
such as may be vacated at any time is one whose invalidity appears on
face of judgment roll, Graff v. Kelly, 814 P.2d 489 (Okl. 1991).
A void
judgment is one that is void on face of judgment roll, Capital Federal
Savings Bank v. Bewley, 795 P.2d 1051 (Okl. 1990).
Where
condition of bail bond was that defendant would appear at present term
of court, judgment forfeiting bond for defendant's bail to appear at
subsequent term was a void judgment within rule that laches does not
run against a void judgment, Com. V. Miller, 150 A.2d 585 (Pa.Super.
1959).
A void
judgment is one in which the judgment is facially invalid because the
court lacked jurisdiction or authority to render the judgment, State
v. Richie, 20 S.W.3d 624 (Tenn. 2000).
Void judgment
is one which shows upon face of record want of jurisdiction in court
assuming to render judgment, and want of jurisdiction may be either
of persons, subject matter generally, particular question to be decided
or relief assumed to be given, State ex re. Dawson v. Bomar, 354 S.W.2d
763, certiorari denied, (Tenn. 1962).
A void
judgment is one which shows upon face of record a want of jurisdiction
in court assuming to render judgment, Underwood v. Brown, 244 S.W.2d
168 (Tenn. 1951).
Void judgment
is one which has no legal force or effect whatever, it is an absolute
nullity, its invalidity may be asserted by any person whose rights are
affected at any time and at any place and it need not be attacked directly
but may be attacked collaterally whenever and wherever it is interposed,
City of Lufkin v. McVicker, 510 S.X.2d 141 (Twx.Civ.App.-Beaumone 1973).
A void
judgment, insofar as it purports to be pronouncement of court, is an
absolute nullity, Thompson v. Thompson, 238 S.W.2d 218 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco
1951).
A void
judgment is one that has bee procured by extrinsic or collateral fraud,
or entered by court that did not have jurisdiction over subject matter
or the parties, Rook v. Rook, 353 S.E. 2d 756 (Va. 1987).
A void
judgment is a judgment, decree, or order entered by a court which lacks
jurisdiction of the parties or of the subject matter, or which lacks
the inherent power to make or enter the particular order involved, State
ex re. Turner v. Briggs, 971 P.2d 581 (Wash.App.Div. 1999).
A void
judgment or order is one that is entered by a court lacking jurisdiction
over the parties or the subject matter, or lacking the inherent power
to enter the particular order or judgment, or where the order was procured
by fraud, In re Adoption of E.L., 733 N.E.2d 846, (Ill. APp. 1 Dist.
2000).
Void judgments
are those rendered by court which lacked jurisdiction, either of subject
matter or parties, Cockerham. v. Zikratch, 619 P.2d 739 (Ariz. 1980).
Void judgments
generally fall into two classifications, that is, judgments where there
is want of jurisdiction of person or subject matter, and judgments procured
through fraud, and such judgments may be attacked directly or collaterially,
Irving v. Rodriquez, 169 N.E.2d 145, (Ill. app. 2 Dis. 1960).
Invalidity
needs to appear on face of judgment alone that judgment or order may
be said to be intrinsically void or void on its face, if lack of jurisdiction
appears from the record, Cockett Oil Co. v. Effie, 374 S.W.2d 154 (Mo.App.
1964).
Decision
is void on the face of the judgment roll when form four corners of that
roll, it may be determined that at least on of three elements of jurisdiction
was absent: (1) jurisdiction over parties, (2) jurisdiction over
subject matter, or (3) jurisdictional power to pronounce particular
judgment hat was rendered, B & C Investments, INc. v. F & M Nat. Bank
& Trust, 903 P.2d 339 (Okla.App.Div 3, 1995).
Void order
may be attacked, either directly or collaterally, at any time, In Re
Estate of Steinfield, 630 N.E.2d 801, certiorari denied, See also Steinfeld
v. Hoddick,
513 U.S. 809 (Ill. 1994).
Void order
which is one entered by court which lacks jurisdiction over parties
or subject matter, or lacks inherent power to enter judgment, or order
procured by fraud, can be attacked at any time, in any court, either
directly or collaterally, provided that party is properly before court,
People ex. re. Brzica v. Village of Lake Barrington, 644 N.E.2d 66 (Ill.App.2
Dist. 1994).
While voidable
orders are readily appealable and must be attacked directly, void order
may be circumvented by collateral attack or remedied by mandamus, Sachez
v. Hester, 911 S.W.2d 173, (Tex.App. -Corpus Christi 1995).
Arizona
courts give great weight to federal courts' interpretations of Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure governing motion for releif from judgment in
interpreting identical text of Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure, Estate
of Page v. Litzenburg, 852 P.2d 128, review denied (Ariz.App.Div. 1,
1998).
When rule
providing for relief from void judgments is applicable, relief is not
discretionary matter, but is mandatory, Orner. V. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1307
(Colo. 1994).
Judgments
entered where court lacked either subject matter or personal jurisdiction,
or that were otherwise entered in violation of due process of law, must
be set aside, Jaffe and Asher v. Van Brunt, S.D.N.Y.1994, 158 F.R.D.
278.
A "void"
judgment, as we all know, grounds no rights, forms no defense to actions
taken thereunder, and is vulnerable to any manner of collateral attack
(thus here, by). No statute of limitations or repose runs on its
holdings, the matters thought to be settled thereby are not res judicata,
and years later, when the memories may have grown dim and rights long
been regarded as vested, any disgruntled litigant may reopen old wound
and once more probe its depths. And it is then as though trial
and adjudication had never been. Fritts v. Krugh, Supreme Court
of Michigan, 92 N.W.2d 604, 354 Mich. 97 (10/13/58).
On certiorari
this Court may not review questions of fact. Brown v. Blanchard,
39 Mich. 790. It is not at liberty to determine disputed facts
(Hyde v. Nelson, 11 Mich 353), nor to review the weight of the evidence.
Linn v. Roberts, 5 Mich 443; Lunch v. People, 16 Mich 472. Certiorari
is an appropriate remedy to get rid of a void judgment, one which there
is no evidence to sustain. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway
Co. v. Hunt, 39 Mich 469.