STRICKLEN v. O.I.P.M., L.L.C.
2017 OK CIV APP 3
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2016Background
- Stricklen was served with a collection suit for unpaid medical bills; Fisher & Fisher filed the suit for O.I.P.M. and used Anderson as process server, who filed an affidavit claiming personal service.
- Stricklen did not respond; a default judgment and garnishment issued. She later hired counsel who informed Fisher & Fisher she had not been served, and Fisher & Fisher suspended garnishment and later vacated the default judgment.
- Before the judgment was vacated, Stricklen filed a separate suit against O.I.P.M., Anderson, and Fisher & Fisher alleging fraud, deceit, abuse of process, intentional infliction of tort, slander, and wrongful garnishment based on the allegedly false affidavit of service.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under 12 O.S. §2012(B)(6), arguing litigation privilege and that Oklahoma provides no civil remedy for litigation-related misconduct; O.I.P.M. and Anderson later renewed dismissal via summary judgment arguments.
- The trial court ultimately dismissed Stricklen’s claims for failure to state a claim; this accelerated appeal followed and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether allegations of a false affidavit of service support a separate tort action (fraud/deceit/abuse of process) | Stricklen: Anderson lied about service; defendants’ misconduct produced a void judgment and wrongful garnishment, giving rise to tort claims | Defendants: Litigation privilege and Oklahoma law bar civil remedies for litigation-related communications; alleged misconduct is defensible or reviewable only in the underlying case | Court: Dismissed — such claims are barred by litigation privilege and must be raised as defenses/procedural challenges in the underlying action |
| Whether a claim for wrongful garnishment lies here | Stricklen: Garnishment was wrongful because it was based on a void judgment obtained by fraud | Defendants: No showing that garnished property belonged to a third party or that garnishment papers misidentified debtor; challenge is collateral attack on judgment | Court: Dismissed — conclusory allegation insufficient; wrongful garnishment typically requires garnishment of non-debtor property or procedural defects in garnishment papers |
| Whether Oklahoma allows civil damages for perjured or false litigation statements | Stricklen: Seeks damages based on allegedly false litigation statement (affidavit) | Defendants: Oklahoma law provides no civil remedy for perjury or litigation-related statements; finality and multiplicity-of-suits concerns bar separate suits | Court: Dismissed — follows precedent that no separate civil action exists for perjury or litigation-related misconduct; remedy is in the original proceeding |
| Whether Anderson preserved the defense in his motion to dismiss | Stricklen: Contends Anderson failed to preserve affirmative defense of civil immunity | Anderson: Motion articulated that Stricklen failed to state a claim because no civil remedy exists for litigation-related misconduct (functional preservation) | Court: Held preserved — Anderson’s motion sufficiently raised the theory that Stricklen’s claims were non-actionable |
Key Cases Cited
- Samson Investment Co. v. Chevaillier, 988 P.2d 327 (Okla. 1999) (recognizes litigation privilege protecting statements made in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings)
- Patel v. OMH Medical Center, Inc., 987 P.2d 1185 (Okla. 1999) (holds no civil action exists for damages caused by perjury or litigation-related statements)
- General Supply Co. v. Pinnacle Drilling Fluids, Inc., 806 P.2d 71 (Okla. 1991) (explains wrongful garnishment typically involves garnishing property not belonging to the judgment debtor and grounds for dissolving garnishment)
- Lockhart v. Loosen, 943 P.2d 1074 (Okla. 1997) (standard of de novo review for dismissals under failure-to-state-a-claim)