Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Brown v. Green Country Softball Ass'n
Citations: 884 P.2d 851; 65 O.B.A.J. 3833; 1994 OK 124; 1994 Okla. LEXIS 145; 1994 WL 637899Docket: 82973
Court: Supreme Court of Oklahoma; November 10, 1994; Oklahoma; State Supreme Court
Dan and Jana Brown appealed a decision from the Supreme Court of Oklahoma regarding the dismissal of their lawsuit against Green Country Softball Association, Willa Brantley, and Derrick Massengale, after the defendants' motion for summary judgment was sustained. The defendants argued that the appeal should be dismissed as untimely. A key issue was whether a Motion for New Trial filed on November 1, 1993, extended the appeal period. The court determined the motion was timely, but ultimately dismissed the appeal as premature. The chronology indicates that the trial court sustained the defendants' summary judgment on October 21, 1993, and the Browns filed a motion for rehearing on November 1, 1993. A Journal Entry of Judgment was signed on November 23, 1993, with the rehearing motion denied on January 4, 1994. The petition in error was filed on February 1, 1994. Changes in the law affecting the filing of Motions for New Trial were discussed, highlighting amendments to 12 O.S. 653, which dictate the timing of such filings. The law effective October 1, 1993, required motions to be filed within ten days after the judgment was entered, rather than when the decision was rendered. The court noted that the October 21 order was not an appealable order, as it did not meet the requirements of 12 O.S.Supp. 1993. 696.3, while the subsequent Journal Entry of Judgment did comply, establishing that the appeal period would typically start from that date. Thus, the appeal was ultimately dismissed as premature. No petition in error was filed within thirty days after November 23, 1993, which typically concludes the inquiry on appeal timeliness. The focus shifts to whether a "motion for rehearing" in the trial court extended the appeal period. Under Section 653, applicable at the time, a motion for a new trial must be filed within ten days after the relevant decision is recorded. Premature motions do not convert into valid filings, and unauthorized motions do not extend the appeal period. The motion in question was filed before the Journal Entry, rendering it premature and ineffective according to established case law. The relevant statute had recently changed, becoming effective October 1, 1993. Previously, a motion for a new trial could be filed within ten days after the decision was rendered, which would have made the motion timely in this case as the decision was rendered on October 21, 1993. The court has historically recognized the potential pitfalls of recent statutory changes in appellate procedures and has applied a rule of prospectivity in similar cases. Despite the conclusion that the motion for a new trial extended the appeal period, the appeal was still dismissed because the January 4, 1994 order denying the motion was not in an appealable form as required by statute. Consequently, the petition in error was dismissed as premature. Some justices concurred, while others dissented on the interpretation of the appealable order's validity and its implications on the appeal timeline. Section 10 of 12 O.S.Supp. 1993. 696.3 defines "Recordable" as an instrument that must be recorded in the court's journal according to 12 O.S. 1991. 24. The clerk is authorized to enter only documents that are officially on file. The law mandates that the district court's journal in civil cases must include copies of: 1) all process items establishing the court's jurisdiction over each defendant, and 2) all signed instruments that clearly specify the relief or orders granted. Effective October 1, 1993, 12 O.S.Supp. 1993. 696.3 stipulates that filed judgments, decrees, and appealable orders must include: 1) a caption with the court name, parties’ names, case file number, and instrument title; 2) a statement detailing the action's disposition and the relief or obligations imposed; and 3) the signature and title of the court. Citations to relevant cases include Aven v. Reeh and Marshall v. OK Rental and Leasing, both of which feature dissenting opinions from Justice Opala.