*1 Evelyn Walter ESKRIDGE
Eskridge, Appellants, LADD, Appellee.
Donna
No. 70763.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
Jan.
Rehearing Denied June
small claims docket be filed at least 48 prior hearing. to the hours court, however, found that the timely was not filed because comply it did not with 12 1758 which that it be filed at § least 72 hours to trial. The court also overruled the Motion to Add Additional Defendants, Party the Motion denied proceeded peti- Trial to Transfer. judgment against tion and was entered $1,327. for defendant Ladd timely Ladd filed a Motion to Reconsider Judgment. and Motion to Vacate The granted court then Ladd’s Mo- tion to Vacate on the basis that had lost II, Dell, Easter, Speck D. Norman & jurisdiction over the case when the amount City, appellants. Oklahoma of the counterclaim filed defendant ex- jurisdictional spe- ceeded the amount that a Cox, Miskovsky A. Brad Grover & Asso- cial could consider under 20 O.S.1985 ciates, City, appellee. Oklahoma 123(A)(1). The court withdrew its also (1) counterclaim, (2) dismissing the Order SUMMERS, Justice. overruling the Motion to Add Additional Today’s interpretation case calls for our Defendants, Party denying the Mo- provisions of certain contained in the Small By vacating previous tion to Transfer. Claims Procedure Act found at O.S.1981 Order without directions to seq. specific 1751 et The issue wheth- pending plain- left small claims court there Transfer, er a filed Motion to accom- petition tiffs’ and defendant’s motions. panied by untimely counterclaim seek- appealed. Ap- The Plaintiffs Court of ing damages in excess of the I, peals, opinion, Division in a memorandum limits, requires Small Claims the Small judgment, affirmed the vacation of the but judge to Claims transfer the case “to the grant the Mo- remanded with directions district court.”1 We conclude that Eskridges petitioned tion to Transfer. The matter rests within the sound discretion of certiorari, granted by which was this guidelines and offer for reconsid- Court. eration on remand. Eskridges that the assert trial court finding
The case arises out of an auto accident
that it did not have
erred
January
They
1988. Plaintiffs
claim that the counterclaim
Walter and
diction.
Eskridge
days
untimely,
Evelyn
filed this action nine
was
and thus the fact that it was
jurisdictional
per-
later in the District
Oklahoma
excess
Division,
County, Small Claims
and the missible under the SCPA is irrelevant. De-
February
disagrees, arguing
was set for
1988. On fendant Ladd
that the
10, 1988,
February
requirement
Defendant Donna Ladd 72 hour
of the SCPA did not
Transfer,
Motion Add
filed a Motion to
counterclaim bar because
Defendants,
Party
greater
jurisdic-
and a coun-
the amount was
than the
Additional
$100,000.
in the amount of
All
tional amount. Ladd concludes that be-
terclaim
sought,
three motions were filed more than 48 cause of the amount
a transfer was
hearing.
mandatory.
Appeals agreed
to the
The Court of
Eskridges
they argued
requires that Motions to Transfer from the with the
insofar as
ey.
1. In this context “district court” is courthouse
In truth the "Small Claims Court” is but a
omnicompetent
of court with
division of our
District Court.
vernacular for division
7(a)'.
adjudicate
seeking any
suits
amount of mon-
See Okla.Const.Art. 7 §
words,
1758. In
filed.
falls under Section
other
that the counterclaim
sepa-
Nevertheless,
appellate
the two statutes are
be considered
court concluded
mandatory,
rately,
each without consideration of
while the transfer was
Yet
*3
granted under
other.
Court
it should have been
Section
Carter
1757,
discretionary
that
1759 are to
allowing
the
for
stated
Sections 1758 and
section
together
pari
and in
be construed
mate-
transfers.
counterclaim,
Any
regard-
at 641.
ria.
Id.
types of transfers that
There are two
amount,
must be filed no later than
less
under
Claims Proce-
be done
the Small
prior
hearing
the
to
72 hours
to
order
discretionary
Act: A
transfer under
dure
comply
Because
with the SCPA.
Ladd’s
mandatory
a
under
and
one
Section
filed, it
timely
not
is in-
counterclaim was
We
resolve
Section 1759.
must
whether
mandatory
not invoke the
valid
does
either statute.
transfer was
under Section 1759.
1759,in reference to the sec
Section
ruling,
the trial court
In its initial
transfer,
“if
type, mandatory,
stated
ond
as to the mandato-
reached
conclusion
claim, counterclaim,
filed
a
or a setoff is
a
ry transfer. He also refused a discretion-
$1500,
ac
an
excess of
the
transfer,
ary
testimony,
took
and ruled for
shall
transferred to another docket
However,
plaintiffs.
the
reconsidera-
added)
(emphasis
the district
court....”
tion,
he
judge
the
concluded that
had lost
requires that
counter
Section 1758
jurisdiction
the counterclaim was
when
prior
the
at least 72 hours
to
claim filed
filed,
previous
his
and therefore vacated
hearing. Here,
filed
the counterclaim was
order.
the
less than 72 hours
to
judge
Insofar as the small claims
concededly
comply
not
with Section
did
jurisdic
that he was without
determined
specifically
addressed
This
tion,
disagree. Clearly,
spe
the
we must
P.2d
this situation Carter v.
power to make
initial
cial
had the
(Okl.1979),
a motion to
wherein
of the coun
of the timeliness
determination
premised
transfer under Section 1759 was
terclaim,
along with
to con
a
which was
filed
on counterclaim
O.S.1981,
the transfer.
sider
that
under Section 1758. This Court stated
though
counterclaim
1757-59. Even
compliance
requires
“the act
a strict
with
filed,
the small
not
require
the 48
amended to
72 hours]
[now
case.
It re
not lose control
did
If
provision
hour
1758....
docket. The
on the small claims
mained
disallowed,
is
there is no basis
is whether
yet to be determined
question
(In
a
Id.
transfer.”
at
Carter
to
case should be transferred
another
Gullett, however,
accompany-
there was
pursuant
to
of the District Court
docket
as
ing
Motion
Section 1757.
here.)
provision allowing for a
That is the
argues that the 72
Defendant Ladd
discretionary transfer out of
Small
requirement
does not
to Section
hour
division,
provides
follows:
Claims
which exceed
1759 because counterclaims
motion of the defendant
action
dollar limit for a
“On
are outside the
$15002
court, be
may, in
discretion
reasoning, Ladd
small claim. Under this
the small claims docket
transferred from
the counterclaim valid
concludes that
court, provided
mandatory
argu
another docket
requires
Her
a
transfer.
is filed and notice
that Section 1759
said motion
ment is based on
fact
party
opposing
mail-
to the 72 hour
the defendant
refer
forty-
least
ing
the motion at
copy
asserts
requirement of Section 1758. Ladd
the time fixed
eight
auto
$1500
that a counterclaim excess
appear
defendant
matically
the order for
falls under Section
while
be heard
The motion shall
not exceed
answer....
$1500
counterclaim which does
Supp. §
12 O.S.1989
$2500.00.
has since been raised to
limit
later
at the
in the order and consid- counterclaim
time. We must
time fixed
hardship
agree
judge,
entering judg-
that the trial
eration shall be
case,
Eskridges,
in effect
plaintiff, complexity
rea- ment for
made
liability
and other relevant mat- determination that
rested with
son for
denied,
Although
If the
the action Ladd.
we do not rule on this
ters.
point,
acknowledge
judg-
if
remain on the small claims dock-
we
that
shall
et_”
stand,
(emphasis
Ladd’s
12 O.S.1981
ment were allowed to
coun-
added)
may be forever
under the
terclaim
barred
estoppel
judi-
theories of collateral
or res
Ladd made
The motion filed Defendant
Harris,
cata. Wabaunsee v.
The trial court
reference to this section.
*4
(Okl.1980);
Am. Bank Oklahoma v.
Entry
Judgment
in
stated
its Journal
Adams,
(Okl.1973);
514 P.2d
to Transfer should
that defendant’s Motion
Boy
Thompson,
Am. v.
Scouts
denied for the reasons that defendant’s
be
(Okl.1963).
stricken, that a trial
counterclaim has been
SCPA, 12
by jury may be had under the
interests,
balancing
In
these
we do not
1761, but that defendant had
O.S.1981 §
untimely
rule that
time an
counter-
thereof,
requirements
failed to follow the
statutory
claim is filed in excess of the
and that a transfer of this matter would
docket,
limit for cases
small claims
hardship upon plaintiffs.
create a
discretionary
granted.
transfer must be
ruling
by
Such
would invite abuse
defen-
a matter rests in the dis
Where
dants
to stall
who seek
of a
cretion of the trial court its action will
deny
claim. It would also
the small claims
be disturbed unless
discretion is
court the discretion
allowed un-
Estate, 201
abused.
In re Crane’s
Okl.
der Section 1757. But we do hold that
(1949).
was the small claim and the de- HODGES, V.C.J., fendant’s counterclaim. OPALA, C.J., HARGRAVE, LAVENDER, DOOLIN, Appeals The Court of affirmed the vaca- KAUGER, JJ., ALMA WILSON tion order and directed that case be concur. out of transferred the small claims docket. Today’s opinion also than affirms. Rather SIMMS, J., concurs result. pronounce- ordering a court’s OPALA, Justice, concurring. Chief ment remands case for reconsideration *5 by of the defendant’s transfer motion ac- today’s pronouncement. to The I accede cording parties’ respective “balance” the holds the of a court that untimeliness I, too, remand cause interests. would exceeding for an amount the counterclaim on the defendant’s another statutory procedure1 in limit small claims explicitly I quest for but would poses legal impediment to a discre- power has today hold that a trial tionary case out transfer to effect a small claim’s specially claims write small docket. (nonmandatory) across transfer interdock- conceptual underpinnings underscore the point litigation et boundaries re-empha- of interdocket boundaries and to legal compelling when tenable or either gov- analysis that size the fundamental-law equitable grounds are transfers erns interdocket within dis- found. omnicompetent court—an constitution- trict cognizance.2 al court of “unlimited” II. AND DISCRETIONARY MANDATORY
I. (NONMANDATORY) OF TRANSFERS A SMALL CLAIM THE IN CRITICAL FACTS LITIGATION to an- may A claim be transferred small two from other docket district plaintiffs appealed Small statutorily specific, authorized methods. judgment in their favor. vacating the order invokes “jur- had concluded he lost On defendant’s 4 ac- O.S.Supp.1985 terms 12 1757 the plaintiffs’ transfer § isdiction” " * * * pertinent The District Court shall have unlimited O.S.Supp.1983 whose § See 12 1. matters, original jurisdiction justiciable provide: terms Article, provided except in this as otherwise may following "The suits be powers administrative and such of review of procedure: the small claims * * *" may provided by statute. be action money recovery “1. Actions based added.) (Emphasis contract tort ... which Carter v. also recovered, sought attorneys be exclusive costs, and other court exceed fees Five Hundred Dollars One Thousand 1751, supra O.S.Supp.1983 note § 3. See 12 * * * ($1,500.00). " “ * * * added.) O.S.Supp.1985 pertinent of 12 4. The terms statutory present limit for a small claim is provide: § 1757 $2,500.00. O.S.Supp.1989 § See 12 may, the action “On motion of defendant Okl.Const., 7(a), pertinent See Art. whose the discretion § transferred dock- docket to another provide: the small claims terms from may “in boundaries never be treated as transferred the discretion may dictional; at least 48 hours’ notice they accepted pro- of the court” on must be ef- mail. The other method for separating line demarcation cedural differ- by the prescribed is fecting a claims, regimes (e.g., small ent remedial of 12 terms § non-jury) dividing probate, jury or dis- provisions require that the case be latter civil, (domestic, classes of crete from the small claims docket removed like). criminal or the counterclaim, claim, a or a whenever “a mandatory A exceeding the is for an amount setoff” hand, spe- presence rests other procedure statutory limit in small claims i.e., filing of a cific parties (unless agreed among the otherwise elements — and for counterclaim which both writing). pari When all the in materia procedural Act of the Small Claims Procedure an amount excess sections (12 seq.) et are construed O.S.1981 Mandatory for a small claim.6 §§ limit apparent that both transfer together, applicable transfers are hence when require the defendant’s transfer methods statutory requirements are met. explicit 48 hours request be made “at least” before rig- interdocket boundaries are not Because in- Although the defendant trial.5 lines, quests idly along jurisdictional frozen so, asserted her stant case did she had not sought by removal nonmandatory within the time allowed tardy small claims counterclaimant O.S.Supp.1985 1758. The last cited giving rejected not be out of hand without requires that a counterclaim or set- section equitable due factors consideration in a “verified and a off be stated answer” the case. plaintiff copy personally delivered to the *6 (72) seventy-two “not later than hours ap-
to the hour set for [defendant’s III. action.”
pointed appearance court the] ARE DISCRETIONARY TRANSFERS denying the defendant’s motion to When PRIMARILY BY GOVERNED that since transfer the trial reasoned dismissible, her counterclaim was NOTIONS OF FAIRNESS to remove the case legal no cause existed responsibili- judiciary’s constitutional It is from the small claims docket. obvious ty and fair efficient the counterclaim’s tardiness was impaired impeded by or process cannot be insuperable jurisdic- viewed below as an obligation statutory enactments. Its of requested removal impediment tional to the the fundamental law’s fairness rests on A legal case. clear error. This was federal, clause, process due state (discretion- nonmandatory district court’s inherent the courts’ claim of on ary) of a small claim can- 1757 transfer dispensation orderly to fashion for those absolutely impeded by not be viewed as Indeed, absolutely essential procedures which are legislative time limits. interdocket transferring provided file an order the action from et said motion is filed docket, opposing claims docket to another the defendant to small and notice proceed mailing as other civil party by copy at least ... the action shall the motion proceed under the small forty-eight time actions and shall not to the fixed ” * ** added.) procedure. appear answer claims the order for defendant further, and, provided de- that the defendant 640, Gullett, Carter v. ($50.00) Fifty posit Dollars as the the sum of (1979); supra at 642 Carter v. court cost. shall be heard at the time fixed "The motion shall be in the order and consideration complexity Act entitles liti- hardship plaintiff, 6. The Small Claims Procedure to the case, adjudicative gants rele- to an accelerated mode. The reason and other denied, recovery limit for small claims If the motion is character vant matters. jurisdictional. clearly procedural, not See 12 remain on the small claims dock- action shall 1751, supra granted, note 1. the court shall et. If the motion is judiciary’s consti- performance in the ARMSTRONG, judicature.7 Appellant,
tutionally mandated function Tim discretionary trans- considering When quest notions of fer invoked under § Oklahoma, Appellee. STATE prime should be the court’s bea- fairness emphasizes “hardship on con. The statute No. F-88-503. case, plaintiff, reason complexity Appeals of of Criminal Oklahoma. matters.”8 for transfer other relevant Where, here, the transfer March belatedly tendered counter- pressed with Rehearing Denied June claim, assess, among should con- relevant matters” “other July As Corrected sidered, compelling equitable con- whether favor of the case to siderations the removal A small claim should be
another docket. if fit for a transfer
deemed
defendant’s tardiness was not liti- by dilatory,
about vexatious or abusive no laches be
gation conduct and found.9 sum, judges
In of the district court power constitutionally
have a invested one to another
transfer cases from docket equitable ground legal
on tenable any point litigation. Under
shown at legislatively imposed condition
procedural time limit jurisdictional perceived con-
straint the court. join affirming judgment’s vaca-
tion, prefer today’s although would with direction that defen-
remand be
dant’s motion transfer be reconsidered of fairness in liti-
light of those standards me
gation process which are articulated writing.
in today’s Okl., tightly rigidly compartments re- divided with 586 P.2d 722-723 Puckett v. Cook. movement cases.” (1978); City City, stricted inter-divisional Oklahoma Winters v. omitted.) J., Car- added and citations (Opala, concur- 729-730 supra 5 at ter v. note 642 dissenting ring part part). Gullett, supra My in Carter v. note dissent 642-643, strongly against judicial treat- counsels pertinent For the terms of time limits for interdocket transfers ment of supra note 4. 1757 see legislatively jurisdictional barriers. erected Constitution, 7(a), "By Art. the district our for "undue be refused Leave to single, integrity faith[,j ‘un- dilatory with delay, court is a indivisible motive bad ... movant, justiciable original jurisdiction prejudice part undue [or] limited ... opposing party true to our we are remain virtue allowance matters ...If Davis, [transfer]_” e.g. an omnicom- Foman v. law’s mandate for fundamental 227, 230, regard L.Ed.2d 222 petent single-level U.S. (1962). 83 S.Ct. we cannot chop up into that tribunal ourselves free