## Facts

- Husband filed a pro se divorce petition in the District Court of Oklahoma County alleging incompatibility; Wife signed an entry of appearance, waiver of summons, and a consent decree.
- Neither spouse resided in Oklahoma County; they lived in Texas County, Oklahoma.
- Wife had multiple sclerosis, and the spouses agreed to an “estate-planning” divorce to make Wife appear without assets so she could qualify for Social Security disability benefits and Medicaid for anticipated nursing-home care.
- The consent decree dissolved the marriage and divested Wife of nearly all marital property.
- After entry of the decree, the parties’ relationship deteriorated; Wife went to live with her parents, and each spouse blamed the other for the separation.
- Wife moved to vacate the decree, alleging fraud and improper venue, asserting the divorce was a sham and the pleaded incompatibility was not genuine.
- The trial court vacated the decree for fraud, emphasized the parties’ nonresidency in Oklahoma County, and dismissed the divorce case; it offered to reconsider dismissal if both parties waived venue and proceeded in Oklahoma County, but they did not.

## Issues

1. Whether the divorce decree was procured by fraud, including a collusive “sham” divorce using false incompatibility allegations and a property division designed to obtain public benefits.
2. Whether filing in a county where neither spouse resided could be treated as a waivable venue defect, or whether it supported vacatur as part of a fraudulent procurement of the decree.
3. Whether “incompatibility” requires a genuine marital breakdown, or may be asserted by agreement for collateral financial purposes.

## Decision

- The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the order vacating the divorce decree and dismissing the case.
- The court held the record supported the trial court’s finding of fraud in procuring the decree, including use of a county of nonresidency and contrived incompatibility.
- The court rejected Husband’s argument that the parties’ waiver language cured the venue problem where the venue choice was part of a collusive plan to obtain a decree on misrepresented grounds.
- The court agreed that actionable incompatibility requires a real conflict destroying the legitimate ends of marriage and the possibility of reconciliation; it was not satisfied by a divorce arranged as a benefits-planning device.

## Legal Principles

- A divorce decree may be vacated when procured by fraud, including “legal fraud” shown by collusive misrepresentations to the court in a nonadversarial proceeding.
- Venue or residency-related requirements cannot be used as a tool to facilitate a collusive divorce based on misrepresented grounds; waiver does not validate a decree obtained through fraudulent procurement.
- “Actionable incompatibility” requires a genuine conflict of personalities that destroys the legitimate ends of matrimony and the possibility of reconciliation; it is not established by mutual agreement to plead incompatibility for financial objectives.
- Appellate review gives deference to the trial court’s credibility determinations and factual findings supporting fraud.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed vacatur and dismissal because the spouses’ nonresident filing and fabricated incompatibility were components of a collusive plan to shift assets and pursue public benefits, constituting fraud in the procurement of the divorce decree.


Vandervort v. Vandervort, 134 P.3d 892 (Okla. Civ. App. 2005)