Cornett v. Carr
2013 OK 30
| Okla. | 2013Background
- Cornett filed a 2006 Oklahoma County suit challenging his ex-spouse Carr’s sale of real property from their divorce with an alleged undisclosed $8,000 payment to Carr.
- The 2006 case was dismissed without prejudice in March 2008 after docket issues; a second suit was filed April 2009, CJ-2009-4065.
- During the second suit, summons were not issued; the trial judge sua sponte dismissed the case after 96 days under Rule 9(a).
- COCA affirmed the dismissal, holding no conflict between Rule 9(a) and 12 O.S.Supp.2002 § 2004(I); the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review.
- The Supreme Court held Rule 9(a) conflicts with § 2004(I) because Rule 9(a) shortens time for service, struck Rule 9(a), and remanded to allow service within § 2004(I).
- Opinion directs the trial court to permit Cornett the remaining time under § 2004(I) to issue summons and complete service; Rule 9(a) is stricken prospectively.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Rule 9(a) conflict with § 2004(I)? | Cornett argues Rule 9(a) shortens § 2004(I)’s time and conflicts with merit-favoring disposition. | Carr argues Rule 9(a) governs issuance of summons and § 2004(I) governs service timing, not in conflict. | Rule 9(a) directly conflicts and is stricken; § 2004(I) governs. |
| What is the remedy for the conflict between Rule 9(a) and § 2004(I)? | Cornett should receive additional time to issue summons beyond Rule 9(a). | Carr contends no additional time beyond § 2004(I) is required; dismissal was proper. | Cornett entitled to remaining time under § 2004(I); remand for complete service. |
| Should Rule 9(a) be retained or struck in Oklahoma rules going forward? | Cornett seeks continuation of Rule 9(a) to manage dockets efficiently. | Carr argues there is no need for Rule 9(a) given statutory framework. | Rule 9(a) is stricken prospectively; no retroactive effect on final judgments. |
Key Cases Cited
- Duncan v. Oklahoma Dept. of Corrections, 2004 OK 58 (Okla. 2004) (legal questions analyzed de novo)
- In re Estate of Bell-Levine, 2012 OK 112 (Okla. 2012) (de novo review of lower court rulings)
- Martin v. Aramark Services, Inc., 2004 OK 38 (Okla. 2004) (statutory interpretation standards)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bd. of Med. Licensure and Supervision v. Pinaroc, 2002 OK 20 (Okla. 2002) (statutory priority rules)
- Vannoy v. Earth Biofuels, Inc., 2009 OK CIV APP 22 (Okla. Civ. App. 2009) (statutory interplay principles)
- Fischer v. Baptist Health Care of Okla., 2000 OK 91 (Okla. 2000) (service of process interpretation)
- Mott v. Carlson, 1990 OK 10 (Okla. 1990) (timing for service related to pleading code)
- Boston v. Buchanan, 2008 OK 114 (Okla. 2008) (policy favoring merits-based resolution)
- Hull v. Rich, 1993 OK 81 (Okla. 1993) (docket management considerations)
- Depuy v. Hoeme, 1989 OK 42 (Okla. 1989) (pleading and service timing guidance)