2018 OK 91
Okla.2018Background
- Jon and Daisy Christian divorced after a four-day trial; Decree of Dissolution filed June 30, 2016.
- Both parties filed post-judgment motions on July 15, 2016; Daisy (Wife) filed a “Motion for New Trial / Motion to Reconsider.”
- Trial court held a hearing September 29, 2016, and entered separate journal entries on October 3, 2016; it denied Wife’s motion as untimely.
- Wife appealed; the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, treating the motion as ineffective because filed more than ten days after the Decree.
- Wife petitioned for certiorari to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, arguing the ten-day deadline must be computed under 12 O.S. § 2006(A), which excludes the filing day and certain intermediate days.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari, held the motion was timely when § 2006(A) was applied, reversed the trial court, vacated COCA’s opinion, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wife’s July 15 motion was timely under 12 O.S. § 653(A) | Christian (Wife) argued § 2006(A) excludes the filing day and intermediate weekends/holidays, making July 15 within the ten-day period | Christian (Husband) and trial court treated § 653(A) alone, counting ten days from June 30 and concluding July 15 was untimely | Court held § 2006(A) controls time computation; excluding June 30 and intermediate weekend/holiday days yields a July 15 deadline, so the motion was timely |
| Whether the trial court’s denial on timeliness foreclosed consideration of Wife’s motion’s merits | Wife argued denial on timeliness prevented full adjudication of her motion’s substance | Trial court summarily ruled lack of merit after finding untimeliness | Court reversed and instructed trial court to afford Wife a full and fair opportunity to present the issues raised in her timely motion |
Key Cases Cited
- Legarde--Bober v. Oklahoma State University, 378 P.3d 562 (Okla. 2016) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Rogers v. Quiktrip Corp., 230 P.3d 853 (Okla. 2010) (statutory provisions must be construed together to effect a harmonious whole)
- In re Protest of Hare, 398 P.3d 317 (Okla. 2017) (plain and ordinary meaning governs statute interpretation)
- Odom v. Penske Truck Leasing Co., 415 P.3d 521 (Okla. 2018) (rules on when to apply construction tools for ambiguous statutes)
- American Airlines, Inc. v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 341 P.3d 56 (Okla. 2014) (test for statutory ambiguity)