Carter v. Gullett
602 P.2d 640
Okla.
1979
Check Treatment

*1 filing. “may” word in this section con-

templates discretionary act.5 If inade-

quate Department was prejudiced

was not know because it did contained, report

what the then trial court granted

should have the extension.

Here, however, shows no Department

prejudice. does not had actual award, deposited

notice of the or that it

amount of the it was award into Department timely

drawn down. did make jury

demand for in one of the nine ample opportunity

cases. It had to do the present

same in the case. finding

Trial Depart- court was correct prejudiced

ment was not if court clerk report

failed to mail a to De-

partment. Trial court did not abuse its denying Department’s

discretion in motion

for an extension of time to file a demand jury trial.

AFFIRMED.

All the Justices concur. Margie

Gene CARTER and Carter d/b/a Drywall, Petitioners,

Carter GULLETT, Geb, Special

James Leonard G.

Judges, and the Division of the CSC County,

District Court of Oklahoma Re-

spondents.

No. 53887.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Oct. Shea, (Okl.1975).

5. Shea v. 537 P.2d 417 *2 the small claims Procedures under Kulmacz, R. by Martha Robert T. Keel formal, rigid restrictions void act are less City, petitioners. Oklahoma for to technicali regard proceed with little and Gray, Linda L. Pankey Whitten & evidence. rules of to the pertaining ties City, respondents. for Oklahoma power to judge with the They cloth right should dispense speedy justice.1 DOOLIN, Justice: plaintiff claim be taken from a small statutory re- This matter involves certain re The act capriciously. arbitrarily' and of the small quirements interpretations and with the 48 hour quires a strict act) (the 12 O.S.1971 claim act Legislature has provision The 1758. § seq., 1758 & 1759. particularly 1751 et § be al should not mandated a counterclaim the date before filed 48 hours suit, for la- lowed unless Plaintiff’s based on contract disallowed, hearing. was filed in the If counterclaim performed, bor and services We con transfer. no basis for a Dis- there is small claims division of Oklahoma and in together Court, strue 1758 & seeking recovery of $370.00. trict 1759 in 1976 ap- § materia. The amendment being continued defendants After once Supp. m., Legislature, June pearance was set for 9:00 a. the claim amount of not file a verified amended 1979. Defendant did not alter the It did prior to the to $600.00. or setoff 48 hours $400.00 counterclaim of the act. hearing required by procedural aspects 12 O.S. 9:00 a. m. is evidence the defend- 1758. There Dunsmoor, 594 Hughes v. The case of a coun- ant communicated his intent to file by Divi- decided (Okl.App.1979) P.2d 1231 plaintiff

terclaim to the in the 48 hour Appeals is Court sion 2 of Oklahoma period set out in 1758. we would dispositive; squarely point and and value.2 effect precedential m. on June

Sometime after 9:00 a. praying defendant filed his counterclaim Let the writ issue. $1,600.00. judgment in an amount of Meanwhile, discovering defendant’s coun- WILLIAMS, J., LAVENDER, timely filed and no terclaim had not been HAR- BARNES, HODGES, SIMMS agreement into be- 1759 entered GRAVE, JJ., concur. defendant, plaintiff tween J., OPALA, dissent. IRWIN, V. C. defendant’s claim. his motion to strike plaintiff’s mo- The trial court overruled Justice, dissenting: OPALA, court for plaintiff petitions tion and sought question first-impression The VII, extraordinary under Art. relief proceeding by this presented be prohibit the the Oklahoma Constitution to a small a writ of transfer of the suit to district another docket may be transferred claim We assume an- when defendant’s of the district above for a sum (defendant) argues a swer with counterclaim respondent value limit small claims’ claim in limitation excess of $600.00 given] thereof is filed divi- $600.001 the act must to another [and be transferred fixed the time before than 48 hours upon filing a veri- less sion of the district court ask that we. [plaintiffs] argues that trial. Petitioners fied counterclaim or setoff. He powerless We do hold the district the amount mandates a transfer. We accede circumstances. in these a claim agree. O.S.Supp.1978 1751. Littleton, (Okl. 1. Black v. 532 P.2d App.1975). Appellant Opin- Policy on Publication of See ions, following App. 12 O.S.1971 Ch. 1.187 2.§ “at least” 48 hours to seek the transfer prohibit ant plea

to their to be an so enforcing what we declare The Court of trial time. order. The court’s unauthorized Hughes v. Okl. concluded in pronouncement, in which I am unable to far as P.2d 1321 So App., 594 [1979]. are: join, assumptions. rests on two Hughes holds the 48-hour deadline *3 (1) O.S.Supp. 12 the 48-hour time limits in methods, statutory to both ble 1978 1757 12 17582 have It does quarrel opinion. with that have no (2) jurisdictional the force of a barrier court reaches require result the supports plaintiffs’ the record in this here. complaint answer that defendant’s in this case ground no There can be counterclaim did in fact arrive later than is unless of the claim prohibiting the permissible by 1757 and 1758 deadline of §§ 1757 48-hour limit §§ we deal with the assumptions these 48 hours. The first of time barrier jurisdictional and 1758 as a constitutionally pre- does violence to our district court automatically divests the that design scribed institutional for the district Constitution, power By act.4 of its courts and the second finds no in single, 7(a), is a Art. the record before us. origi- “unlimited integrity with indivisible may A small claim be transferred to an- justiciable matters jurisdiction of all nal by other district court docket two statutori- ”5 remain true to our . If we are to (1) ly methods: under 1757 on authorized an omni- law’s mandate fundamental (2) defendant’s motion to transfer and un- court, we can- competent single-level der 1759 on defendant’s counterclaim or that chop up regard ourselves free in setoff for more than When all $600.00. compartments rigidly into divided tribunal pari materia sections of the Claims Small tightly inter-divisional restricted together,3 Procedure Act are construed it is Although as an require clear that both cases.6 methods the defend- movement of 4. Prohibition will not lie erroneous 2. All other to Title 12will be citations by court has of the law where the district reference to the section with the title num- jurisdiction subject-matter action ber of the omitted. of the Spradling parties v. Hud and of the thereto. son, [1915], Neither O.S.Supp. 146 P. 588 Okl. 3. The sections in materia are 12 keep court lie to an inferior does 1759 and 12 O.S.1971 1758. making provide pertinent part: an erroneous determination in in matters within its law or facts “§ 1757. On motion of the defendant the ac- Walden, School Dist. No. 20 tion shall be transferred from the small claims P. court, provided docket to another docket of the oppos- said motion is filed and notice Tubby, Tubby P. 5. In 202 Cal. ing party forty-eight (48) prior at least hours expressed in the itself the time fixed in the order for defendant to concerning jurisdiction- following language appear [emphasis or answer . added] integrity superior court: al pleading, “§ No formal other than the but if the notice, necessary, claim and shall be city only superior in the “There is one * * * defendant wishes to state constitutes a counterclaim or a matter which new county Juris- Francisco. San setoff, he shall in the diction is vested the Constitution answer, copy file a of which shall be department. particular judge not in a or person, many delivered to the and filed may provides be as are It sessions of the court as there that there further forty- with the clerk of the court not later than judges. eight (48) prior hours to the hour for the together, set sitting separately or Whether appearance of said defendant action in such judges court. The hold but one and the same [emphasis departments added] the convenient into is for division dispatch claim, counterclaim, “§ 1759. If a a setoff [emphasis added] of business." is filed for an amount in Dollars Hundred jurisdiction- excess of Six expression aptly describes ($600.00), the action shall be transfer- sweep design our dis- institutional al red to another docket of the less both agreement court un- district trict court. parties agree writing said susceptible papers construing of more statutes with the in the action that 6. When claim, adopt interpretation, that said tried one we must counterclaim or setoff shall be than ” meaning which will make the enactment small claims . . plain- June 7 and there is no averment that speed pression legislative concern for claims, more than processing small the 48-hour norm tiffs failed to receive that is, doubt, vigorously without entitled June 13 at 48 hours before trial time on basis, day-to-day enforced on a 9:00 A.M. inject

its application must not into forensic sheet Since court clerk’s docket operations a boundary mechanistic line that not show the hour defendant’s pre-1969 would return us to the state of and there is rec- counterclaim was filed fragmentation destroying plaintiffs ord time received proof flexibility the present system’s in internal mail, follow the byit we must here copy of short, management. speed In caseflow to the effect “[Frac- yield must when it collides with the Consti- disregarded in of a are to be tions design tution’s basic for our district courts. than one computations which include more I would treat the 48-hour limit of *4 day . .”25 23. Unless O.S.1971 § akin to statute limitations. arise, is which priority an issue of be applied subject tolling, should to waiv- here, day of less than an interval er, estoppel. consent or Relief from its punctum ignored day is may be because good stricture should also be available for contemplation law.9 temporis by compelling equitable cause shown consid- separate is not a The small claims division erations.7 Cf. State ex rel. Central State by the Court as intimated Reed, Hospital v. M. Griffin Memorial John supra, v. rather Hughes but Okl., 493 P.2d 815 [1972]. court’s dockets. is one of the district 1758, By the terms of 1757 and inhibits The Constitution 91.2. 1759, together with strued the small our of the 48-hour treatment of transferring claims defendant desirous claims as for transfer of small deadline the case is required both to the counter- barrier. equivalent to a claim and to notice there- Moreover, fails doc- record of “at least forty-eight hours” before trial ument defendant’s want perform time. Defendant’s failure this deny either I would hence that time limit. act, true, if is undocumented juris- the writ refuse assume The entire record here consists diction. repro- appearance loose-leaf docket sheet IRWIN, V. am authorized state our copies. duced for use in two Neither of in this view. concurs these shows the exact hour defendant’s an- swer and All counterclaim was filed. we during

know is that it reached the clerk 11,1979 on June and was then in a

claim scheduled for on June 13. There record trial of the fact that coun-

terclaiming untimely. defendant was alleged

sole for defendant’s tardi- “applica-

ness plaintiffs’ consists of writ prohibition”. no- directly

where admitted or denied.8 The

defendant does maintain that it mailed to

the plaintiffs the counterclaim on Benson, authority which 8. No is called to attention stitutional. Crowell 285 U.S. 285, 296, places upon party-respondent [1932]; S.Ct. Neu burden L.Ed. Commission, Okl., original proceeding v. Tax an asserted

mann P.2d an fact, not. verified or tra-record State, Whittenhall, 23; City 9 Okl.Cr. Tulsa v. Franklin 282 P. 131 P. 183 [1913].