*1 Sept. 1994. Maner, Tulsa, appellee.
C. Jack Lemay, Jacque pro se.
SUMMERS, Justice.
Corporation brought a
The Peoria
small
Lemay.
against Jacque
A de-
claims action
Lemay
judgment against
was rendered
fault
on
Journal
day.
was filed the same
On
Lemay
November
claiming improper
judgment,
vacate the
ser-
process
vice of
and lack of notice.
pearance docket states that
on December
vacate was overruled
Lemay
in this
error
Court
10,1994.
Corpo-
Monday,
Peoria
to dismiss. The
must
ration moved
dismissed,
late,
not because it came too
it is
but because
First,
we observe that the
untimely
challenge
judgment,
the default
here
since no
error was filed
thirty days
was
after
filed in District Court.
O.S.1991 990A.
vacate,
filed more than ten
days after
date of
did not
running
judg
delay the
of time to
Procedure,
Appellate
ment. Rules of Civil
*2
I34I
1.12(c)(2).
appeal
appealed from,
thus limited to
to attach thereto the order
Rule
The
is
signed by
judge
adjudication
peti-
the district
and
in
Court’s
of the
the District
§
judgment. Yery Yery,
compliance with 12 O.S.1998
696.2. He
the
tion to vacate
(OMa.1981);
comply
was told that failure to
could result in
12 O.S.1991
adjudication overruling the vacate. adjudication petition on a to va
An 952(b)(2). appealable. § is cate O.S.1991 1,1998 Beginning October the time to ruling satisfy But a memorialization of that begin appeal- does not to run until an ing requirements O.S.Supp.1993 the of 12 judgment conforming or to 12 able order § required by § 696.3 is 696.2. Section 696.2 § O.S.Supp.1993 696.3 is filed with the Clerk states that a decree or of District the Court. writing” order “shall be reduced to in con requires appeal- § 696.2. Section 696.3 the formity with 696.3. See 12 caption able order or to have a 696.2(A). signed absence of and court,
including the name of the the names journal entry satisfying § or order 696.3 designation parties, and of the the file num- adjudication petition on the of the to vacate instrument, ease, ber of the the title of the means, as far as we can tell on the record action, disposition and a of the as well as the us, before that the time to from that signature and title of the court. adjudication yet has not commenced. 12 990A(A). 696.2(C), O.S.Supp.1993 §§ No written memorial of the trial dismissed adjudication of court’s the to vacate appellate Only copy in appears the record. appearance
of the Clerk’s docket has been C.J., LAVENDER, HODGES, V.C.J., and submitted to show that the was over HARGRAVE, KAUGER appearance may ruled. The docket not be WATT, JJ., and concur. accepted judge’s as a for substitute me OPALA, J., entry judgment. Hulsey
morialized concurs in result. Co., 777 Mid-America Insurance Preferred SIMMS, J., dissents. (Okla.1989). 935 n. 5 Neither does appearance satisfy require- docket require appellant I would to furnish a O.S.Supp.1993 § ments of 696.3. judge-signed and filed Journal twenty days or dis- suffer appearance “may in docket serve an missal. appellate tribunal as an authoritative source identifying
for the instruments the court establishing filed in or for clerk has the case ALA, Justice, concurring in OP result. any by other matter which law is spread Hulsey correctly today on that docket.” v. Mid- that The court concludes Co., 10,1994, supra America Insurance at appeal, lodged January here on this Preferred appearance prius judg- 935 n. 5. The docket here does is too late for review of the nisi ment, demonstrate that no memorialization of the whose written memorial was entered adjudication early trial court’s on the too for below and vacate had been filed in the case as of the from the trial court’s still- corrective relief appearance copied 10,1993 date the docket was unmemorialized December denial of our benefit. appellant’s postjudgment petition to vacate (judgment).
Defendant/Appellant by was directed this court, January I this Court on 1994 to file date Unlike the would dismiss error, peal by appellant’s supplemental petition certain a as abandoned failure comply with this court’s 199k There, cure the we directed her to
order. journal entry of infirmity by securing a
fatal ruling to be reviewed and an attachment to
depositing it in this court as *3 petition in error within “supplemental”
her the critical memorial days of the date
30 below, ruling is filed but 16, February 1994.” “later than
no event ig appellant this uneounseled Because
nored, direction, her should the court’s Purdum, Blessing 205 Okl. v.
be dismissed. (1951); 313,
379, 238 P.2d 314 Smith (1969).
Smith, Okl., 972 Law- litigants held to the same stan
yerless are competence as those which
dards of skills legal practitioners. Fun
apply to licensed (1987). Jones, Okl.,
nell v. 737 P.2d
ORDER Chief Justice. premature was dismissed P.2d 1340. On 17, 1994, Lemay filed an amended October petition in error with an instrument attached denying a motion purporting to be the order judgment. Appellee responded to vacate a to dismiss the because the and moved order on the motion to vacate had not been filed in the District Court. 9,May attached to De- The instrument
may’s an order amended error is denying a motion to vacate. This order does appear not in the record certified to us District Court. The trial the Clerk record order on court shows conforming the motion to vacate note that 696.3. We also Lemay’s petition in error of November accompanied not with the 1994 was 15. After an fee. 20