*1 (1976); Co. Construction Sooner (1975). Okl.,
Brown, Virginia KAY and William H. Kay, Appellees, no evidence was held and No trial stipulation and medical re than the other judge. The presented to the trial
port was COMPANY, SUN OIL VENEZUELAN evenly remotely related to only evidence Company, Mary Parish Oil St. limitations was a statement the statute of Company, Limit- Land Anderman Oils Easley’s physician. report in the medical ed, Partnership, KRM a Limited Petro- Therein, reported: the doctor Wyco Royalty, Corporation, Phil- leum has never been told that “He states he Company, corpora- lips Petroleum employ- problems are related to his his tion, Bigheart Pipe Corporation, Line he any way or that could seek Company, a division of Sun Production low back compensation chronic Company, corporation, Rex Sun Oil employment at problems related to his Company, Rex Petro- Petroleum a/k/a B.F. Goodrich.” Corporation, Republic leum &Gas may reveal the state of Company, Appellant. a statement Such Oil Easley at the time of his examina- mind of No. 69521. However, physician. it does not tion person in whether a reasonable indicate Supreme Court of Oklahoma. Easley’s with his educational situation Feb. un- background would have been “aware” requirements Coy. der Pursuant does
Munsingwear Coy, this evidence reasonably support finding
not that Eas- by the
ley’s claim was not barred statute trial court should have
limitations. The on the issue of whether
heard evidence
Easley was “aware” as that term is used
Coy.
Therefore, opinion we VACATE the Appeals, the deci-
the Court of REVERSE panel the en banc and the trial
sions of
court, further and REMAND the cause for
proceedings not inconsistent with this hold-
ing.
OPALA, C.J., HODGES, V.C.J.,
LAVENDER, DOOLIN
HARGRAVE, JJ., concur. WILSON, J.,
ALMA dissents.
KAUGER, Justice, dissenting: view, my improvidently certiorari was
granted.
SUMMERS, J., dissents, joins
KAUGER, J. *2 Klenda, O’Connor, M. Newton &
Thomas Tulsa, appellees. Strecker, Colopy,
David E. Katie Con- J. Tulsa, Winters, Woodyard, Wayne L. ner & Pawhuska, appellant. WILSON,
ALMA Justice: presented is whether the action issue is to recover for labor or servic- below one by 12 contemplated es as hold 936 does not authorize at- We that § torney in the action and that the below provisions of “labor and services” par- prevailing authorize fees to recovery money in ties actions for the performed, due for and services appli- reaffirm our established rule of strict provi- cation of the “labor services” sions Kay (Kay), Appellee, H. William
agreed leases and act to evaluate mineral production in prospects as consultant on Company Osage County for Golden Oil services, (Golden), For Appellant. these $1,000.00 pay per agreed Kay to Golden plus assign Kay to expenses month to percent overriding royalty one interest acquired by for which all leases Kay consulting services. had rendered Kay performed agreed in 1973 the agreed paid Kay the and 1974. Golden Kay monthly assigned amounts. Golden herein, wife, appellee percent his a one Osage overriding royalty interest in the 25, 1975, County February Dated leases. Kays an assignment granted the overriding royalty interest in all oil which marketed may produced, be saved and Kay received from the described leases. assign- pursuant royalty proceeds oil Kay ment. became aware leas- casinghead gas on these production of per- the one es and endeavored collect casinghead royalty on cent gas production. percent Kay was refused a one
When
filed
gas proceeds, suit was
interest in the
from
seeking
accounting
proceeds
of all
gas produced
casinghead
specific
the sale of
from
the absence of a
statute or a
leases,
production
money judgment
specific
the oil
par-
contract
therefor
between
gas proceeds
for the amount of the
due
Exceptions
ties.
to the American Rule are
overriding royalty
under
narrowly
Similarly,
defined.4
the mandato-
quiet
percent
title in
and to one
ry provisions
prevailing
9365 that the
*3
casinghead gas on said leases. Golden
party in an action to recover for labor and
summary judgment, asserting
moved for
services shall be allowed a reasonable at-
specific
unambiguous
that under the
torney
strictly applied.6
fee are
assignment,
terms of the
was enti-
Golden
judgment
tled to
as a matter of law.1 The
v.
Flanagan,
Russell
In
“for
summary judg-
trial court
provisions
labor and services”
of
936
§
ment.2
strictly
brought
were
limited to actions
party,
prevailing
As
Golden moved for an
recover
for labor and services rendered.
attorney
expenses
award of
fees and other
specifically rejected
interpretation
We
O.S.1981,
under 12
The trial
936.
court
§
of
936 which would authorize the courts
§
concluding
denied the motion
“...
this is
attorney
prevailing
award
fees to the
-
not ‘a civil action to recover on
party
alleging
in an
injury
action
that was
contract for labor or services’.” The Court merely related to a
for
contract
labor and
Appeals
of
reversed and remanded with
in Russell v.
controversy
services. The
previously granted
instructions. We
cer- Flanagan
alleged
arose from an
breach of
tiorari.
warranty on the sewer line services ren
Thus,
dered.
the nature of the action was
firmly
The American Rule is
estab
for breach of warranty and not for
jurisdiction.3
is,
recov
lished
this
That
each
ery
money judgment
of a
litigant
on a debt for
legal rep
bears
cost of his/her
resentation and our
labor and
courts are without au
services rendered as contem
thority
attorney
to assess and
plated by
award
fees
936.7
§
Appellant designated
Paulk,
1.
the entire
Company
trial court
4. Tower Oil & Gas
v.
appeal.
petition
(Okla.1989);
record on
The
City
amended
1279
Winters v.
Oklahoma
of
petition
allege
filed in the trial court
that the
City,
(Okla.1987);
ments Accord: in the statute. Hicks enumerated SNYDER, a/k/a, Eugene Robert Agency, LLoyd’s Insurance v. General Eugene Snyder Robert 85, (Okla.1988), Inc., 86 wherein Appellant, purposes 936 prevailing party for determined the offer settle- 1101, provisions of 12 ex- Oklahoma, Appellee. STATE applicable money to actions for pressly No. F-86-684. and, only; Doyle Kelly, judgments 717, (Okla.1990), P.2d wherein § Appeals Court of Criminal of Oklahoma. were affirmed in an action on commissions and bonus a contract to collect 4, Dec. 1989. services rendered. commissions earned for Rehearing April Granted fees, support of the claimed Rehearing On Feb. that the Golden contends royalty given in interest was payment services rendered for collection for
and the action is one *5 Clearly, gravamen
services rendered. interpretation is the action below language in the
and effect of the executed
assignment royalty inter- Summary judgment
est. assertion that the lan- on Golden’s
guage assignment judg- in the entitled it to Indeed,
ment as a matter of law. neither Kay
Golden nor listed the amount to be
paid owing or due and fact,
services rendered as a material dis-
puted undisputed, summary judg- in the proceeding. An
overriding royalty interest is not one of the
contracts enumerated in 936. The action only collaterally
below is related to
agreement for labor and services. The dis- authority
trict court to assess was without fees under award denying
this action and its order the motion fees is therefore affirmed.
OPALA, C.J., LAVENDER, SIMMS, HARGRAVE, JJ.,
DOOLIN and concur. V.C.J., SUMMERS, J.,
HODGES,
concur reason of stare decisis: Russell (Okla.1975). Flanagan,
KAUGER, J., dissents.
KAUGER, Justice, dissenting:
I Flanagan, would overrule Russell v. (Okla.1975) progeny. and its