Brown v. Green Country Softball Ass'n
884 P.2d 851
Okla.
1994
Check Treatment

*1 Dan and Jana BROWN

Brown, Appellants, COUNTRY SOFTBALL ASSO-

GREEN

CIATION, Brantley, Der- Willa Massengale, Appellees.

rick Arnold, Tulsa, appellants.

Earl for W. Sheridan, Joseph Sharp, A. John H.T. Tulsa, Timothy Tipton, appellees. E. for SUMMERS, Justice. summary judgment

Defendants’ motion for appeals. was sustained and Plaintiff Defen- dants move to dismiss the as out of question time. The is whether a Motion for New Trial filed on November timely to extend the commencement of time We hold give ruling prospective reason that we but on our own motion THE PROCEDURE CHRONOLOGY OF Plaintiffs sued the District Court County damages caused one of Tulsa being struck a softball. On October them the trial sustained Defen- Summary Judgment, dants’ Motion for holding. caused to be filed an order sheet so rehearing” Plaintiff filed a “motion Monday, November 1993. On November judge signed and caused to be filed 23 the Judgment. Then on Janu- Journal rehearing was ary 1994 the motion for was filed denied. Plaintiffs’ February *2 852 696.2(C). Lawton, City § v. 877 THE Mansell OF CHANGES

CHRONOLOGY of (Okla.1994). THE LAW P.2d 1120 IN filing Motions for New The time for Entry Judgment was filed on A Journal § 653. Such a motion in 12 O.S. Trial is set 23, 1993. Examination of that November of time to the commencement extends it to be in the form that instrument shows Timeplan Corpora only timely if filed. it is § complies 696.3. the time to with (Okla.1969); O’Connor, 935 461 P.2d tion v. ordinarily begun to run appeal would have (Okla. Heimbach, 827 P.2d 170 Estate of O.S.Supp.1993 12 from that date. See 1992). undergone two re The section has 990A(A), § that an where is stated significant cent amendments. by filing petition a in error in is commenced 1, 1993, version to the 1991 Prior October thirty days this Court within of the date filing § of a Motion for of 653 authorized the judgment appealable order is filed with days after the date the Trial within ten New the clerk of the trial court. No (Emphasis was rendered....” “decision thirty in this within error was filed Court added.) § change in 653 effective But a 23, 1993. This would of November (and 1, thus effective when October 1993 ordinarily inquiry as to the timeli- end 1, November Plaintiffs filed their Motion appeal, be- ness of the but the issue then 1993) filed provided that the motion must be rehearing” in comes whether the “motion for judgment, days after the decree “within ten appeal. trial court extended the time to in appealable prepared conformance act has been 653, November, with section 101 of this during in Section effect added.) filed_” (Emphasis 1993, plainly application that an for a states made, trial “if must new be in The most recent amendment is found the date that the instrument 1,§ 1994 after” the Okla. Session Laws Ch. 343 bearing § the characteristics of 696.3 is filed § 653 effective which of the trial court. with the clerk trial, “an for a new if now states made, must be filed not later than ten appeal- after the decree or Generally, when a motion must be prepared able order conformance with specified period prematurely filed,_” during filed a has been Section 696.3 of this title ripen properly not into one provide that if a trial filed motion will goes It on to new 808, Tayer, P.2d 815 judge’s pronounce- after the filed. Porter v. 385 motion ment, (Okla.1963); Cassidy, but before the Barrows v. 113 Old. (1925). immediately 581, “deemed filed” recog motion will be P. 582 also 239 We judgment. after the motion will nize that an unauthorized appeal. Protest not extend the time THE APPEAL TIMELINESS OF Sweeney, 183 Okla. 583 Cannon, (1938); v. 40 Cannon Okla. Looking then at the law effect for this (1935); Fidelity United States the order of case the first issue is whether Ham, Guaranty v. 122 Okla. 254 P. Co. an order. October 1993 was (1927). 100, 101 Layer, to Porter v. Pursuant ap- order was in form of a minute premature Trial supra, a Motion for has sheet, pearing on an order and we have as a Motion for New Trial the same effect recently to held such order sheet entries late, filed too and a late motion will not Reeh, appealable. 878 P.2d 1069 judgment. from a extend the time (Okla.1994); v. Rental & Leas- Marshall OK (Okla. Estate judg- A ing, 879 P.2d 132 1992). rehearing or new trial The motion for order must be ment filed, came before the Journal § specified by form prior premature, and of no effect under “jurisdictional thus prerequisite” as a to the com- O.S.Supp.1993 opinions of this Court. mencement of an O.S.Supp.1993 § 696.3. reference to section 10 refers to 12 Trial. That order was in the form of an But the law then in effect was the New very change. The 1993 of a recent result order sheet. The order sheet does not satis- only of 653 had become effective version fy an the form 1, 1993. Prior to that date the 1991 October O.S.Supp.1993 §§ under 696.3. effect, autho 653 was version Reeh, supra; Aven Marshall OK *3 the of a motion for new trial rized supra. The record before days after the date the “decision within ten us is devoid of an order overrul- was rendered ”. The de ing the Motion New Trial. the was rendered on October cision here petition dismissed as Motion Trial would and the for New timely under the former statute. have been HODGES, C.J., WILSON, and ALMA Service, Spectra In P H Inc. v. & Oilfield JJ., KAUGER, WATT, SUMMERS and (Okla.1991)

Energy Corp., 823 P.2d 365 we concur. statutory recognized that certain recent likely changes appellate procedure were LAVENDER, V.C.J., by concurs reason of traps unwary, declined to and we stare decisis. by pronounce giving prospective application. In ment therein Es HARGRAVE, JJ., SIMMS and concur (Okla.1992) tate part. dissent in applied prospectivity we this rule to time Trial. The limits for Motions OPALA, J., dissents. motion there was filed within ten after the of the but more than ten ALA, Justice, OP with whom SIMMS and pronouncement. its after See also HARGRAVE, Justices, join, dissenting. Manning Dept. Public State ex rel. Safety, 876 P.2d 667 We like today’s I concur in conclusion that While today’s ruling, that wise hold insofar as trial, though pre- appellants’ motion for new requires new trial motions filed between Oc maturely filed, may legally be deemed effec- 1993 and 1994 to be tober scenario, tive in this action’s I cannot accede after the filed January to the court’s view that the operate prospectively from and shall after prius trigger appeal did time. nisi mandate this case. Defendants’ motion to That is without a doubt recordable dismiss is denied. (when measured the standards of O.S. 24)1 substantially and meets all the Concluding that the Motion for New O.S.Supp.1993 § in 12 requirements Trial extended the time to does not memorial'. For a detailed save this from dismissal. The order January explanation my upon point, this see 1994 denied the Motion for views pertinent of 12 1.“Recordable" means that force of 12 O.S. 2. terms meeting § 24 an instrument section's effective October are: ” criteria must be entered on or “recorded in the Judgments, and or- "A. decrees journal. may only that court's The clerk "enter” ", pertinent which is “on terms of 12 are filed with the clerk of the court ders that file § 24 O.S.1991 are: shall contain: "Upon journal kept the record to be caption setting the name of the 1. A forth by the clerk of the district court in civil cases court, designation par- of the the names and following copies ... shall be entered of the ties, and the title of the file number of the case on instruments file: instrument; process by the court 1. All items of action, disposition 2. A statement of the of the acquired jurisdiction person of each motion, including proceeding, statement case; defendant in the 2. All instruments and party parties and of the relief awarded to in the case that bear obligations imposed liabilities signature specify clearly the party parties; other granted [Emphasis or order made.” add- relief court; signature ... and title of the 3. The ed.] Marshall v. OK Aven v. Reeh3 and Leasing, Inc.4 Petitioner, DUNCAN,

James Randall In- and Continental IMPORTS

POWERS Compensa- and the Workers’ surance Court, Respondents. tion *4 Lowery, City, petition-

Mark Oklahoma er. Inc., Okl., Reeh, Okl., Rental and 4. Marshall v. OK J., J., (1994) (Opala, dissenting). (Opala, dissenting).