Schepp v. Hess

and, Wilson, J., specially ployment-at-will doctrine at same Alma concurred time, could foster opinion. creates a climate that and filed litigation. oppressive frivolous This C.J., Hargrave, Hodges and Lav- unnecessary; statutory “new” tort is also ender, JJ., dissented. wrong for the al- presently remedies exist (See major- legedly committed in this case. 4). Here,

ity opinion, as in other footnote

situations, public policy considerations are legislature. For

best determined reasons, respectfully I

these DISSENT. SCHEPP,

Mildred L. as conservator of Stoss, Vaney

the Estate of Bell

Plaintiff-Appellant, HESS,

DeFrances William Edward Stoss

Hess, Ray Charlene Hess Cowe and Hess, Defendants-Appel

mond Edward

lees.

No. 67607.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Feb.

As Corrected March Bryan, Gorden, Jr.,

J. Gid William W. City, plaintiff-appellant. Oklahoma for Johnston, Allen, Allen, Kenneth R. John- Tack, Chickasha, ston defendants-ap- pellees.

OPALA, Vice Chief Justice. 1) dispositive issues are: Did the trial authority court have the to vacate pronounce its decree and to a new decision on the in response merits to a term- time “motion to reconsider” rested grounds prescribed by different from those grounds O.S.1981 10311 as well.as moned, pre- 1. The provided terms of 12 O.S.1981 which in Section 176 of this scribe the for vacation and modifica- title. orders, judgments tion of or final are: mistake, neglect “Third. For or omission of "The district court shall have to vacate irregularity obtaining judg- the clerk or modify judgments its own or orders within ment or order. prescribed the times hereafter: fraud, practiced by “Fourth. For the success- cause, By granting "First. a new trial for the party, obtaining ful or order. prescribed within the time and in the manner proceedings against "Fifth. For erroneous in Section 653 of this title. infant, mind, person or a of unsound where By granted proceed- "Second. ings against a new trial ap- the condition of such defendant does not constructively defendants sum- to the mov- of the deed on mutual which have been available based mistake.3 She motion sought prove ant under O.S.1981 that her mother had con ten filed more than was veyed the remainder interest to Hess under 2) rendition?2 and If days of the decree’s appropriat the mistaken belief so, trial court’s order of vacation does the proceeds to her ed own use all the its new decree on the that is combined with the earlier land sale. an exercise of sound dis- merits manifest After a bench trial court found that the decision rests on a suffi- cretion that (a) by the mother had executed the deed questions in answer both cient cause? We mistake, (b) but the evidence was “unclear” the affirmative. anything on the issue whether Hess knew Schepp [Schepp], L. Appellant, Mildred Schepp’s possession money about Vaney Bell as conservator for Stoss’ [her derived from the sold land. The court con- estate, by sued to cancel a deed mother’s] daughters cluded the mother wanted the to reserving in herself a which the mother — equally property share in her and had exe- conveyed life the remainder estate — cuted the deed in the mistaken belief that sister, Hess, Schepp’s DeFrances Stoss one Schepp keep had intended to the funds for [collectively appellees of the called Hess]. her own use.4 the deed was executed Two months before parcel by the mother had sold another of land The deed was cancelled the trial party. Schepp 22, to a third Because May 1986 decree and Hess acquired nearly pro- all of the somehow moved for “reconsideration” on June ceeds from the consummated sale and the 1986. After evidentiary hearing mother wished to avoid an uneven division court vacated its earlier decision and denied property daugh- of her the two between sought by Schepp’s the cancellation relief ters, the remainder was deeded to Hess. petition, declaring September in its new conveyance 1986 decree that the mother’s year Schepp, A her mother’s later with “shall remain in full force and consent, effect.” conservator of her estate. became days Schepp Ten later a appointment Less than two weeks after her filed motion for Schepp upon, instituted this suit for cancellation new trial. Before it was ruled record, Okl., [1984], pear pro- in the nor the error in the 681 P.2d when such mo- ceedings. ten-day period tion is filed but within parties decision, of the thirty "Sixth. For the death one days following the it will not judgment before in the action. operate appeal to extend the time to that from casualty "Seventh. For unavoidable or mis- Okl., Canupp, decbion. Pierson v. fortune, preventing prosecut- Salyer 550 n. and v. National Trailer ing defending. Inc., Convoy, 1362 [1986]. “Eighth. judgment, For errors in a shown hand, timely-filed On the other a new-trial mo- arriving an infant in twelve months after and, denial, tion extends time on its age, prescribed at full in Section 700 of this movant can secure review of the adverse full title. it, proceedings and of all that led to taking judgments upon "Ninth. For warrants properly preserved. if error was See in this attorney for more than was due to the connection, Corporation Federal v. Ind. School plaintiff, when the defendant was not sum- Dist., Etc., Okl.App., 606 P.2d 1143-1144 legally moned or otherwise notified of the contrast, By in an from a term- taking place judgment.” time and such disposition, aggrieved time movant can ob- with, only tain that review which b coextensive 2.We treat Hess’’“motion to reconsider" as the beyond, fairly but does not reach the bsues com- equivalent a term-time mo- functional prised response tion to While a so-called “motion to within the trial court’s to the vacate. statutory Yery Yery, reconsider” does not exist in the no- 1031.1 motion. [1981], prius practice Salyer menclature for Oklahoma’s nisi v. National Trailer Inc., procedure, may accepted Convoy, supra. it as a motion vacate, decision, modify, open or correct a admitted in her brief on that which would invoke the trial court’s term-time petition power the “sole issue" raised her for nisi under 12 note 6. O.S.1981 infra prius relief was whether the mother had con- Although a "motion to reconsider” within veyed property to Hess mutual mbtake. days judgment may ten of a abo be considered as a new-trial motion tolls the time Horizons, Co., appeal, Leasing Inc. v. KEO 4. See infra decree, days appears thirty reasoned, of the new she to have the trial court is powerless change lodged decision, appeal. its and the term-time motion must be condemned as Appeals Sep- The Court of reversed untimely but an fatally and hence defective decree; that, tember it held because grant new trial. We now cer- June Hess’ reconsider— Minnesota tiorari to revisit affirm the ten filed after but within September disposition May 1986 decision —was rested the merits. than other those afforded 1081,5 the motion was ineffec- I. tive to invoke the trial court’s term-time IN- under vacation O.S.1981 HESS’ “MOTION TO RECONSIDER” VOKED appellate THE 1031.1.6 The relied TRIAL COURT’S Mining Minnesota “TERM-TIME” pronouncement our POWER TO VACATE Manufacturing Co. v. Smith.7 THE INITIAL There, DECREE AND TO to have RENDER ONE held ANOTHER IN ITS perceived8 this court is that a PLACE “motion to reconsider” filed ten after days thirty of the trial termi Deeply in rooted the common law is nal decision must be based upon grounds concept the courts retain for a prescribed in 1031 which are different § period plenary limited control their over from those that could have been invoked in terminal power decisions. This was histori timely a new-trial motion under 12 O.S.1981 cally any during invocable at time the term 653;9 Minnesota this, failing 651 and of in court which the was ren- §§ discretion, by 5. the of 12 see prevented § For terms O.S.1981 1031 which the was having a fair trial. jury prevail- "Second. Misconduct of the or 6. The terms of are: § O.S.1981 1031.1 ing party. (30) days “Within the rendition a after of surprise, ordinary "Third. or Accident which court, judgment, the its own initiative or on of prudence guarded against. not could have correct, party, may open, modify aof inadequate damages, "Fourth. Excessive or judgment. may pre- or vacate the The court appearing given to have been under influ- the notice, any, given.” scribe what if shall be passion prejudice. of or ence [Emphasis added.] in “Fifth. Error the the assessment of recovery, large of amount small, whether too or too 581 P.2d 31 [1978]. contract, upon where the action is a or great has a There been deal of confusion and injury property. for the or of detention uncertainty among the bench and bar over verdict, report That "Sixth. the or decision postjudgment Minnesota’s effect on motions and evidence, by not sustained is con- or sufficient Morgan, Delayed time. See Attacks on trary to law. Judgments, 33 Final Okla.L.Rev. footnote 3 evidence, Newly-discovered "Seventh. mate- Burnes, Knell v. party applying, rial for the could he J., (Opala, result); concurring n. 14 [1982] in not, diligence, reasonable with have discover- Smith, Mining Mfg. and Minn. produced at ed and the trial. (Williams, J., also, dissenting); at 36 see trial, "Eighth. occurring Error of law at the Proposed Amendments to the Civil Procedure excepted by party making appli- the the Code, 1001(c), Comment to § 59 O.B.J. 2908- cation. When, complain- "Ninth. without fault of the ing party, impossible it becomes to make case 9. The terms of 12 § O.S.1981 651 are: [Emphasis made.” added.] "A new trial is a court, the reexamination in same The terms of 12 653 are: § O.S.1981 fact, law, of an issue of or of either or unavoidably prevented, both, applica- "Unless the by jury, approval after a verdict a the of made, trial, tion a new if referee, must be report a or the of a decision the for verdict, verdict, report within ten the or report court. The decision or after former vacated, regardless decision is granted, rendered of whether or shall be and a new trial ended, except application party aggrieved, any of the term has for the cause the for evidence, causes, newly-discovered following affecting materially of for the material of not, rights party applying, party: such the substantial which he could with rea- Irregularity proceedings diligence, pro- "First. court, have sonable discovered and referee, trial, jury, prevailing party, any impossibility making or or at the or duced referee, [Emphasis order of or abuse of a case-made.” added.] dered; authority hence came to be ed discretion”16 that has been described as Although power known as “term-time.” terms “almost unlimited.”17 While the Oklahoma,10 entertain a new-trial motion is limited to court have been abolished power term-time grounds, the common-law survived pow 1031.1 term-time § § er is coextensive with the common law and in 12 and came to be codified 1031.1;11 invoking the time limit for by statutory hence remains unfettered § thirty days grounds. Minnesota stands alone in our control now fixed at ancient invoked, jurisprudence as a restriction from the decision. Once power may term-time power now the trial court’s 1031.1.18 § codified thirty-day period.12 exercised the extent Minnesota holds that To The common-law term-time authori pursuit term-time a filed more statutorily ty, now reconfirmed thirty days following than ten but within a terms §of remains undiminished rendition, judgment’s is ineffective to in abridged by may not be case law. The voke the trial court’s 1031.1 control un reposed so in the trial bench is en less the motion be based a tirely unrestricted either 651,13 the §§ ground which was for timely unavailable statutory grounds.14 any 1031 or other inclusion a new-trial motion in and not Neither the terms of 1031.1 nor those of voke which could have restrict the ex its common-law antecedents pressed motion, been new-trial (cid:127)power any specific ercise term-time pronouncement our that case no grounds.15 longer exposition be treated as a correct judges enjoy plenary Trial term- Oklahoma’s declared common law.19 To from Minnesota’s restric- very day’s departure time control with “a wide and extend- 15. 14. Reid v. 13. Williams 10. 11. Philip Carey at dic Clinic v. Bailey, [1910]. Oklahoma, O.S.1981 651 see 250, note ¶ 237 P.2d [1960]; 145 P. monwealth [1913]. Co. v. 145 139, 140-141 1981 4), Hogan Bailey, 854; Southeastern, Okl.Sess.L.1969, Orthopedic ^[1971] and Firemen’s 219 P.2d 992 14, § 1031.1 infra 393, Vickers, Firemen's Fund Ins. Co. v. see In re 54 P.2d at 1033. For the terms of 12 433, § 354-355 [1979]. (the Life Conklin, Okl., 201 Okl. also, Jennings, 395-396 [1914]. note 16: Todd v. 437 [1971]. Clinic v. see Long Baptist court’s Ins. Co. v. 38 Okl. Inc. v. Jones v. [1951]. Vickers, Fund supra Ch. ^[1950] supra Bell Lumber 215, For Doty, Jennings, syllabus General Convention of 134, 1033 Ins. Co. v. supra 643, note 6. See Strain, Okl.App., the terms (the Avery, 354 P.2d 203 P.2d note § Okl., [1936]; Hogan also, Philip Carey Orr, 134 P. note 2. court’s 110 P. ¶ Okl., 205 Okl. Co., 481 P.2d 1), Griffin, 44 Okl. Griffin, 6; at and 456, 885, 851, 203 Okl. 481 140-141; Orthope- syllabus 12 O.S. 134 P. Com infra P.2d 274, 144, 457 886 853 176 19. “A court has full control over its orders or For a discussion of the 18. 17. judgments during rect, revise, supplement, open, supra Inc. v. syllabus brought made, the exercise peals idated for other from the term-time ¶ for ings term-time motion. is either supra pending on the other no or from a denial of new-trial of the confusion Today’s motion was at the time an return us to the earlier interplay Judgments, supra note 8 at 45. result), and our decision in 181, 2). Morgan —one uncertainty to await the nisi 212 P.2d 663 judgment may note 8 at 474-476 note 11 at 139-140 Doty, supra and decision should eliminate a ¶ before the trial court a term-time from that granted this court will of new-trial motion with term-time 3), follows from this may, upon appellate disposition. for review of the v. hand, clearly Morgan, Delayed Phillips appeal its sound Minnesota, that followed in the wake of Orthopedic generated by or denied and an the term-time [1949], note 12 at 145 decision, If the latter is settled and be dismissed as sufficient Petroleum term which prius disposition (Opala, brought discretion, amend, stay appellate proceed- ruling practice (the see Knell v. conflict, at judgment ruling, Clinic v. then the two Attacks on Final motion, —will J., cause regularized. or vacate such Minnesota and from Co., concurring in which the Southeastern, granted (the be consol- great shown, confusion judgment moot; Jennings, for relief they 202 Okl. syllabus and the there is Burnes, of the plea deal cor- and are ap- If, if, in evidence, ported by the the trial court range teaching about tive 1031.1 movant who invokes to a available lacked sufficient cause to vacate it. We more than ten the term-time 1) vacating disagree for two reasons: apply prospectively to after shall judgment the first decision the chancellor corrected a case, cases appellate all and certiorari misperception proper application about future cases in which progress and to all equitable powers doing of his and in so have been rendered shall 2) newly-dis- cured an error of law and in this cause.20 the mandate’s issuance postde- covered evidence considered at the in force in The common law’s test hearing supports cree the trial court’s new measuring legal correct this state decision on the merits.23 response to a of a trial court’s ness plea is whether sound discretion 1031.1 came was exercised sufficient A. vacate, modify, open shown21 to or cor In the suit to cancel the deed the decision, or to rect the earlier refuse 1) Schepp’s found mother had exe sought.22 This is the test we apply relief cuted the instrument in the this case. mistaken belief appropriated to her own II. proceeds use the from the mother’s land 2) support.the sale and the evidence did not THE TRIAL COURT EXERCISED requisite mutual mistake element.24 IT SOUND DISCRETION WHEN THE RENDERED VACATION ORDER A deed cancelled for mutual mis- Schepp argues original that because the legal sup- error decree is free from

judgments. This was the rule at common gan 207-208. An phasis Kiester, Long v. Bell, and it court’s lows this text of the P.2d at 355-356. Oklahoma’s (the syllabus complete v. 201 Okl. prevails Phillips added.] 663; syllabus Hill, 199 Okl. If 1); accord with the common law. Mor pre-Minnesota jurisprudence Selected Investments syllabus); Montague impressive string Petroleum Jones v. almost all ¶ 1); C.J., encyclopaedia. Strain, Tulsa Co., Judgments, jurisdictions." 145 P.2d 434 [1944] ^[1939] supra Exchange Corporation citations fol- note (the ^[1949] note 15 at State, stands [Em- law, (the 212 at 23. The effect of the trial court’s vacation order 24. The Henderson petition for its that denied the relief right control in er, though statutorily unregulated, ilarly was to substitute another decision test for cancelling the deed are: deed. to trial as a barrier to an abuse of nisi reviewing findings Properties, derogation The common law’s by jury. May made in the an exercise of term-time 22 decree Inc., sought by Schepp of a successful [1954], May sufficient-cause and Dodson v. cancelling on merits works sim the litigant’s decree in her prius pow the Schepp "1. the conservator That Mildred connection, 20. in this Amoco See Production v. Vaney for the estate of Bell Stoss and is hold- Corp. Okl.App., Com’n. ing funds in a conservator’s account on behalf Stoss; Vaney Bell Vaney Bell “2. That Stoss executed the deed pre-Minnesota 21. See Oklahoma’s case law cited question on the that Ms. mistaken belief supra note 19. Schepp approprated money had the to her [sic] use; own similarity is both in the There contrast "3. That it is unclear whether or not DeFranc- grant Hess, Hess, exercise of the trial court’s a new es Stoss William Edward Charlene timely wielding aon motion and in Raymond Hess or Edward Hess knew the authority same under term-time control. The money separate nothing. was held In or knew regulat- strictly for a new-trial are the been; either event deed was executed statute, ed belief it had grant deciding Vaney When whether to "4. That Bell Stoss did understand the deed; but, arbitrarily opin- trial court substitute its effect of the executed it under a belief; Patterson, jury. Aldridge ion that mistaken for denying Schepp the relief of if fraudu- nal decree and mistake for unilateral take25 or sum, In it cannot said that the other cancellation. inequitable conduct lent or the chancellor insufficient Because trial court acted an party is shown.26 a unilater- responding on but Hess’ term-time initially rested his decree cause when were, findings as a mistake, his initial plea al for relief. law, as a basis for insufficient

matter of relief.

cancellation C. vacating a decree for cause Sufficient urges by having con- Lastly, Schepp that curing er- certainly includes 1031.1 under § evidence when hear- sidered the additional to the movant’s are fatal rors of that law reconsider, ing Hess’ motion to the trial litigation. We in the outcome interest impermissible new effect held an court’s vaca- that the trial therefore hold Evidentiary hearings on term-time trial. is not revers- cancellation decree tion of the by case motions do not stand interdicted the earlier deci- is so because ible. This complaint any from either law.27 Absent the relief findings support did not sion’s heard in party, Hess’ term-time was granted. then Schepp’s annual account- conjunction with hearing ing newly- At the as conservator. B. documentary evidence as well discovered hearing testimony on Hess’ motion to At the as additional were admitted trial court heard additional to the trial court’s use of objection reconsider the without According testimony, deciding af evidence. Hess’ “reconsider- this evidence proceeds from Schepp acquired quest. documents were ob- ter ation” sale, deposited postdecree compelling she them the mother’s land tained via a order Schepp’s personal production.28 Schepp in a bank account Because failed their $10,- Schepp object, any also withdrew errors in name alone. she waived year rulings, “loan.” About a if there 000.00 as a business all those indeed were. later, Schepp had conserva become

tor, repaid sum and she the borrowed III. it, along nearly all of the other

placed with QUEST HESS’ RENEWED FOR money, opened expressly account OF SCHEPP’S DISMISSAL evidence, This the mother’s benefit. FAIL APPEAL MUST degree Schepp’s earlier con shows funds, previously doubtless Hess had moved dismiss trol over and use of the us on certiorari re- ultimately the chancellor that the now before convinced view, arguing pre- neither a mutu failed to deed had been executed any error. Hess contended that al nor a unilateral mistake. We con serve Schepp’s provides while new-trial motion was clude the new evidence another below, requi- vacating origi- allege, it did not with the legally sound basis for 25. Bond v. 26. Womble v. 27. See Whittett v. fraud or rison, may be syllabus is [1963]; ^[1959] [1962]; 537 Tulsa, property ters." "5. That shown.). [1949]. Okl., Okl., (the Malay v. Commonwealth ¶ reformed inequitable [Emphasis 2); Chalfant, divided Vaney 312 621 P.2d cf. Mahoney, P.2d Cleary Smith, Payne, Bell Stoss wished to have for unilateral mistake when syllabus equally added.] conduct 946, 201 Okl. 528, Petroleum Okl., Life Okl., Okl., 947 ¶ 533 between her 4); Ins. Co. ^[1957] 600, 341 P.2d 367 P.2d 383 P.2d ^[1980] the other Ware v. 208 P.2d Corp. (the v. 912, 718, (A v. Har daugh- City 26, Avery, party deed 535, 913 719 her 29 of 28.We smeyer there was error in 274, 2d P.2d P.2d P.2d Okl. O’Bryant, [1937]; 1936]. Whitney, 958, pendency 285 N.W. 101, 253, 866, 745, do not reach here the Gosdin, v. Nichols v. 960 238 P. 255 99 Ill.2d 179 866-867 Superior 12, 748 [1984]; [4th of the term-time motion. No ob- Okl. 237 P.2d at 698, 458, 94 S.W.2d [Idaho Dist.1933]; 389, [1935]; Bonaparte, compelling discovery 420, 700 Court, 459 Bartels v. 76 Ill.Dec. [1939]; [1925]; App.1986]; 65 P.2d 436-437; Martin v. 132 221, Bull v. question 171 Okl. Meyer, Cal.App. see 223 823, 971, also, Leake, F.C. Welborn v. Jones, Foutch v. [Tex.App. 136 Neb. 459 N.E. whether 973-974 234, during 42, Jacob Crane 712 111 22 42

41 particularity, any January 13, site raised of of errors terms our 1987 order which denied Hess’ dismissal motion.31 appeal. on her This denied Hess’ court 13, January motion on 1987. In her brief This is required court not to con appeal reurged on the merits of the she to sider a quest renewed dismissal based on of Appeals the Court her earlier grounds identical those on prior to which a for dismissal. unsuccessful dismissal effort came to be dismiss, rested.32 Hess’ motion reurged to trial,

A motion for new too appeal, presents in her brief on compel no ling reasons and fails vague general argu to tender an apprise to the trial court ment different from that already submitted of meaningfully seeking the reasons for attempt earlier bring her about this preserve is not re effective appeal’s demise. We hence decline dis allegations any Schepp’s view error.29 prior turb our denial of Hess’ dismissal 10,1986 October new-trial motion rested request. Schepp clearly On this record ground verdict, report sole that “the entitled to the previous benefit our rul decision is sustained sufficient evi ing and cannot be barred from corrective dence, contrary nonspe or is to law.” Its relief her inefficacious new-trial mo allegations plainly cific condemn the motion pendency petition-in- tion’s at time her secure fatally corrective defective brought error was in this court.33 relief her main contention COURT OF APPEALS’ OPINION IS Hess’ for “reconsideration” inwas VACATED AND THE TRIAL COURT’S untimely law but an new- ineffective DECREE DENYING CANCELLATION trial motion. RELIEF TO THE PLAINTIFF IS AF- FIRMED. By appel- order contained record, Schepp’s late judge denied SIMMS, DOOLIN, KAUGER and 30; new-trial on October she SUMMERS, JJ., concur. petition-in-error her on Octo- WILSON, J., ALMA concurs ber 29. The latter within date is 30 specially. September 30 decree now under review. Jurisdiction was hence HARGRAVE, C.J., and HODGES and unmistakably LAVENDER, JJ., invoked.30 We so held dissent.

jection titling argu- appeal. was made to this and no and involve other * *” * pressed ment [Emphasis this issue the briefs. added.] Okl., 130, support Huff, denying In of our order v. 687 P.2d n. 1 Hess’ motion 131 Huff [1984]; Pierce, Okl.App., Winters v. to dismiss this we cited to 12 752 P.2d 990, 838, [1988]; Corp. 839 and Federal v. Ind. School Dist., Etc., 1141, Okl.App., 606 P.2d 1143-1144 Mayes County, 32. See State v. Court District 700, [1968]; Murphy, 440 P.2d 706 A.A. Inc. 990, infra, 30. See 12 O.S.1981 § and 12 O.S. 942, [1961]; Banfield, 363 P.2d 949 Em Supp.1984 § Villines, 552, 277, bry v. Okl. infra. 53 P.2d 279 pertinent [1936]; Kay terms of 12 O.S.1981 990 are: County Bryant, Gas Co. v. 135 Okl. Supreme also, [1929]; “An to the Court com- Chicago, 276 P. see R. appealable disposition Airlines, Inc., Okl., menced of a P. I. & R. Co. v. American by filing Cannon, court or tribunal with the [1965]; Clerk Eagle Red error, Supreme petition in Court a thir- [1947]; Okl. Schulte, Mount v. ty days from the date of the final order or ” * * * sought to be reviewed. Sawyer Sawyer, [Emphasis added.] pertinent O.S.Supp.1984 The terms of 12 990.1 § Co., Okl., 33. Cf. Sellers v. Oklahoma Pub. are: [1984], although petition filed, where the "mo- "When a in error the jurisdiction Supreme untimely tion to reconsider” was Court shall the treated as have of subject new-trial motion hence to appeal. entire action that is the and ineffective extend the of time, jurisdictional steps No additional shall be nec- court nonetheless reviewed the Supreme essary judgment’s petition-in- to enable the rule because Court correctness upon any days errors made in the action error was within of "filed of final [Emphasis original.] which are asserted in order." Justice, WILSON, concurring power common-law of trial inherent

ALMA judgments and courts over their orders specially: following period immediately rendition jurisdic- general common-law Courts of statutorily impaired by thereof is not decrees, judgments, of all tion control have power to 1031.1. A trial court’s vacate § orders, in their however conclusive or other judgments, or other its own decrees orders they character, during the term which remains exercised unfettered when aside, rendered; they may va- set are (30) following thirty days rendition thereof. during modify them such term cate and the old “term Our decisions under time” and extended discre- of wide exercise applicable to the expressly provi- rule are Ins. Co. tion. Commonwealth Life Orthopedic sions of 1031.1. Clinic v. § (1951). 237 P.2d 433 Avery, 205 Okl. (Okl.1971). Jennings, More- power equitable of courts This inherent over, trial court’s exercise of the inher- during judgments over orders their 1031.1, power ent under neither de- § they are rendered arises term at which pendent on, precluded by, nor either an statutory authority. of independently application for trial available under 12 new Co., 203 Long Bell Lumber Williams 651; or, purely statutorily O.S.1981 cre- § (1950); P.2d 992 Selected ated at 12 enumerated Bell, Corporation v. Investments provide 1031 which avenues for vacation § (1949). The import 206 P.2d 989 its during day period beyond thirty at 12 O.S.1981 1031.1 is not codification to addition to that codified at 1031.1. As abrogate, rather a trial retain determined this Court Crider First judg inherent control over its own California,1 Interstate the ex Bank of ments, decrees, period orders or other for a Mining Mfg. tent that Minn. following Only the immediately rendition. Smith, (Okl.1978)may be P.2d 31 inter applicable period may in which a trial court preted contrary, to the it is overruled. In control, its its inherent exercise exercising asmuch as court a trial its au act, legislative is effected substi thority, expressed by may do thirty (30) period days tution of a initiative, so its own or “of rendition, old in lieu of the vacation ”, ... whether to determination vacate The statutory “term time” rule. cod not is addressed to the sound discretion ification thus states: thirty period days of the trial for a correct, 1031.1 Authorization to following disposition immediately final open, judgments modify or vacate judgment, or order and will decree not be —Time —Notice reversed on in the absence of a showing of clear abuse discretion.

Within after the rendi- court, judgment, the tion of a its own on motion a party, initiative or correct, modify open, judg- or vacate the may prescribe

ment. The court what

notice, given. any, shall if

[Emphasis added.] 61,059, Court, opinion Supreme Unpublished July 1. No. of the Okla- homa

Case Details

Case Name: Schepp v. Hess

Court Name: Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Date Published: Mar 13, 1989

Citation: 770 P.2d 34

Docket Number: 67607

Court Abbreviation: Okla.