417 P.3d 1223
Okla. Civ. App.2018Background
- Christ's Legacy Church sued Trinity Group Architects and others alleging negligent design/oversight and breach of contract related to construction of a new church building.
- Church originally filed in Jan. 2011 (original petition dismissed; refiled Jan. 2012). Church alleges it learned of Trinity's failures in the late spring of 2006 and observed construction defects in 2007.
- Trinity moved to dismiss the negligence claim as time-barred (two-year statute) and later moved for summary judgment on breach of contract, arguing the contract was oral/implied so a three-year limitations period applied.
- Trial court (May 2012) dismissed the negligence claim as barred and (Jan. 2016) granted summary judgment for Trinity on breach of contract. Remaining co-defendants later settled or were dismissed, triggering appealability.
- On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed dismissal of negligence but reversed the breach-of-contract summary judgment and remanded, finding material factual disputes about whether the parties’ written proposal constituted a written contract (which would invoke a five-year limitations period).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether negligence claim was time-barred under 12 O.S. § 95(A)(3) (2-year SOL, discovery rule) | Church: discovery rule creates factual question about when it learned of Trinity's negligence. | Trinity: Church alleged it learned of the failures in late spring 2006; suit filed far beyond two years. | Affirmed: dismissal proper. Church admitted knowing of defects by 2007 (alleged discovery in 2006); claim barred. |
| Whether breach-of-contract claim is governed by 5-year (written) or 3-year (oral/implied) SOL | Church: the written proposal and subsequent conduct show a written contract; five-year SOL applies. | Trinity: proposal was unsigned; any agreement was oral or by performance, so three-year SOL applies and claim is time-barred. | Reversed: factual disputes exist about whether the proposal was accepted and thus constituted a written contract; summary judgment was inappropriate. |
| Whether parties’ mode of acceptance (oral/performance vs. signature) converts a writing into an oral contract for SOL purposes | Church: acceptance by oral assent or performance can still bind parties to the terms of a written proposal. | Trinity: unsigned proposal means no written contract; acceptance created only an oral/implied agreement. | Held for Church on this point: mode of acceptance does not necessarily defeat a written contract; issues of fact about acceptance preclude summary judgment. |
| Whether the appeal is timely/final given partial summary judgment and later settlements/dismissals | Church: dismissal of remaining defendants and settlement rendered prior partial order final and appealable. | Trinity: plaintiff’s filing may not reflect a final appealable order under 12 O.S. §§ 953, 994. | Held for Church: voluntary dismissal/settlement of remaining defendants made the earlier partial summary-judgment order appealable; appeal timely. |
Key Cases Cited
- Patmon v. Block, 851 P.2d 539 (Okla. 1993) (voluntary dismissal of remaining claims can render earlier interlocutory order final and appealable)
- Calvert v. Swinford, 382 P.3d 1028 (Okla. 2016) (Oklahoma applies the discovery rule to tort accrual for statute of limitations)
- Harlow Pub. Co. v. Patrick, 72 P.2d 511 (Okla. 1937) (if instrument constitutes a written contract, five-year SOL applies; otherwise three-year SOL for unwritten contracts)
- Cortright v. City of Oklahoma City, 951 P.2d 93 (Okla. 1997) (evidence of a writing signed by one party and acceptance by the other can bring an action within the SOL for written contracts)
- Plano Petroleum, LLC v. GHK Exploration, L.P., 250 P.3d 328 (Okla. 2011) (summary-judgment standard: appropriate only when no substantial controversy of material fact exists)
- Samuel Roberts Noble Found., Inc. v. Vick, 840 P.2d 619 (Okla. 1992) (§ 109 is a statute of repose and does not replace applicable statutes of limitations)