Narrative Opinion Summary
The Supreme Court of Oklahoma adjudicated whether attorney fees could be awarded under 12 O.S. 1991 § 940(A) in a slander of title case. Turner Roofing, the appellee, sought attorney fees after defending against a slander of title counterclaim by the appellants, which the Court of Appeals denied. The Supreme Court clarified that § 940(A) applies solely to cases involving negligent or willful physical injury to property, excluding slander of title, which pertains to false statements about property title. This interpretation is supported by prior rulings, such as Woods Petroleum, distinguishing between physical injury and property rights damage. The court overruled the contrary ruling in McDowell v. Glasscock, reinforcing that the legislative intent of § 940(A) does not extend to intangible property rights. Additionally, the court noted procedural deficiencies in the appellants' appeal, which failed to properly address the attorney fees issue. Consequently, the Court of Appeals' decision to deny attorney fees to Turner Roofing was affirmed, maintaining that the slander of title did not satisfy the statutory requirement for awarding attorney fees under § 940(A).
Legal Issues Addressed
Attorney Fees under Civil Procedure Code 12 O.S. 1991 § 940(A)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that attorney fees under § 940(A) are restricted to cases involving negligent or willful physical injury to property, excluding cases like slander of title.
Reasoning: The court concluded that attorney fees under § 940(A) are only applicable to actions involving negligent or willful physical injury to property, which does not include slander of title.
Legislative Intent of 12 O.S. 1991 § 940(A)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court clarified that the legislative intent behind § 940(A) is to cover only physical injury to property, not intangible property rights such as slander of title.
Reasoning: Legislative intent regarding the interpretation of 940(A) is clarified to be applicable only to actions involving physical injury to property, not to intangible property rights.
Precedent and Statutory Interpretationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court reaffirmed the precedent set in Woods Petroleum, distinguishing physical injury from damage to property rights, and overruled McDowell's contrary interpretation.
Reasoning: The court reaffirmed that while 'property' can refer to various rights, the legislative intent behind § 940(A) does not support its application to slander of title actions.
Procedural Requirements for Appealsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellants' failure to properly present the attorney fees issue in the original petition was deemed a procedural error, rendering the issue unreviewable on appeal.
Reasoning: Their failure to challenge the attorney fee award in the original petition in error is deemed fatal for appellate consideration.