Debba Brown v. Amanda Johnson
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2001-CA-00572-COA
DEBBA BROWN
v.
THE ESTATE OF JOHNNY J. JOHNSON, DECEASED, AND AMANDA
JOHNSON, INDIVIDUALLY
DATE OF TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
CERTIORARI FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLANT
APPELLEES
03/12/2001
HON. R. B. REEVES JR.
LINCOLN COUNTY CHANCERY COURT
B. RUTH JOHNSON
OLEN C. BRYANT JR.
CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS
MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT DENIED
AFFIRMED - 04/02/2002
4/16/2002; denied 7/30/2002
8/9/2002
BEFORE McMILLIN, C.J., BRIDGES, AND IRVING, JJ.
McMILLIN, C.J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. Debba Brown, formerly Debba Johnson, filed suit in the Chancery Court of Lincoln County seeking,
among other things, to set aside a previous final judgment of divorce obtained in that court dissolving her
marriage to Johnny Johnson. Johnson was deceased at the time the action was filed and Brown named as
parties her former husband's estate and Amanda Johnson, to whom Johnson had become married after the
divorce. Brown's allegation was that the judgment of divorce was obtained by fraud in that Johnson had
failed to disclose significant assets, both in response to discovery requests and in his compliance with the
disclosure requirements of Uniform Chancery Court Rule 8.05. The chancellor found that the action was
improper and that Johnson's sole remedy would have been to pursue a motion for relief under Mississippi
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), but that the six month period to seek relief under that authority had
expired long before Johnson's action was filed.
¶2. Brown has now appealed, contending that Rule 60(b)(1), by its explicit terms, does not purport to limit
her right to pursue "an independent action to . . . set aside a judgment for fraud upon the court." M.R.C.P.
60(b).
¶3. Brown's argument fails to note the distinction between an alleged "fraud . . . of an adverse party" and a
"fraud upon the court" as the two are set out in Rule 60. The two concepts are not interchangeable.
Fraud on the court (other than fraud as to jurisdiction) is fraud which is directed to the judicial
machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or
perjury. It has been held that allegations of nondisclosure in pretrial discovery will not support an
action for fraud on the court. It is thus fraud where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced
or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function--thus where the
impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted.
Bulloch v. U.S., 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).
¶4. The language of Rule 60(b) does not create a right of independent action to set aside a judgment where
none existed before. Rather, its purpose is simply to explicitly acknowledge the long-existing right of a party
to collaterally attack a void judgment. If Brown has such a right to bring a collateral attack on the 1997
divorce judgment, that right must be found somewhere other than the language of Rule 60(b) relied upon by
her as her authority to maintain this action. That authority does not exist as to the ground for relief asserted
by Brown. Brown's claim is based on the claim that Johnson, in his various discovery requests and related
disclosures, swore falsely to the accuracy of representations regarding his financial condition. Mere perjury
is not ground for a collateral attack on a judgment of divorce. Kirby v. Kent, 172 Miss. 457, 459, 160 So.
569, 572 (1935). Such allegations are in the nature of claims of fraud against a party to the proceeding
rather than the kind of fundamental interference with the administration of the justice system that would
amount to the more serious and more narrowly defined fraud upon the court.
¶5. In this case, Brown and Johnson were divorced by judgment entered December 22, 1997. This action
was not commenced until June 6, 2000. The rules of procedure governing civil litigation in this state, and, in
particular, Rule 60(b), deal with two concepts that tug in opposite directions. One is that, human nature
being what it is, inevitably parties and witnesses will misrepresent facts and swear falsely under
circumstances, which will lead these actions to be difficult to discover contemporaneously with the event.
The second is that, at some point, there must be finality to litigation. Rule 60(b)(1) deals with these
competing considerations by (a) providing a window of opportunity in the post-judgment period, albeit a
relatively narrow one, for a party to discover and act upon alleged improper conduct by a party or a
witness in the course of the litigation, and (b) barring any subsequent litigation attacking the validity of the
judgment on that ground once that window of opportunity has closed. Under Rule 60(b), that window, as
to the allegations advanced in Brown's complaint, closed forever in late June 1998. The chancellor did not
err in dismissing this action as untimely.
¶6. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CHANCERY COURT OF LINCOLN COUNTY IS
AFFIRMED. COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANT.
KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., BRIDGES, THOMAS, LEE, IRVING, MYERS,
CHANDLER AND BRANTLEY, JJ., CONCUR.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.