Tulsa Professional Collection Services, Inc. v. Pope

requested the determination from the trial requests engage that this Court In the Matter of the ESTATE OF H. finding regarding of facts which of the POPE, Jr., Everett Deceased. instruments submitted the record on TULSA PROFESSIONAL COLLECTION

peal joint established tenancies and which SERVICES, INC., Appellant, point did not. We would out to is not the function of this Court to make an initial ques- determination of fact POPE, Joanne Executrix of the Estate properly tions which have been Jr., Pope, Appellee. H. Everett to the trial court but determined it.13 No. 62204. Appeals correctly Court of deter- Supreme Court of Oklahoma. mined that it could not determine the is- sues on which had not been decided Nov. ruling the trial court. As a on those Rehearing Denied March questions cause, is essential to the we must remand this matter to the trial court for a

determination as to which of the instru-

ments at issue in the estate of the deceased joint tenancy

created relationships and

which instruments were not intended

the deceased to relationships. create such

IY. opinion Appeals, Court of I,

Division in this matter is VACATED.

The order of the trial court is AFFIRMED

and the cause is REMANDED to the trial

court for proceedings further consistent opinion.

with this

SIMMS, C.J., DOOLIN, Y.C.J., and

HODGES, HARGRAVE, KAUGER and

SUMMERS, JJ., concur. WILSON, JJ.,

OPALA and concur in

result. (Okl. Gwaltney,

13. Davis v.

St. John Medical Center. This had debt expenses arisen from the illness last Pope, Appellant of H. Everett Jr. initiated by appli- current action of an order compelling cation for an payment expenses of the last illness H. Pope, Everett Jr. The following facts were stipulated parties conjunction to in ruling with the trial court’s applica- tion: Pope, (“decedent”)

1. H. Everett Jr. was admitted to St. John Medical Center in (“hospital”) Tulsa on 23 November 1978. remained in hospital He until on 2 April his death 1979. 2. The hospital decedent’s $142,000.00. stay excess of De- were payments cedent’s insurer made some to leaving hospital, a net balance due $14,657.55. parties dispute amount the net balance due attributa- last ble to decedent’s illness. pro- 3. will was Decedent’s admitted to July on 16 1979. bate qualified personal representative published estate to of decedent’s July July creditors on 1979 and 24 timely was 5. No creditor’s claim presented personal representative applicable statutory period within the parties dispute months [sic]. creditor’s claim ever whether a was personal representative, presented, if such claim was not but proved. compel suit to personal No representative approve has been filed. Assignee “Application filed an Compelling Payment Expenses Order Williams, Naylor & A. Inc. David Tra- Illness” on 17 of Last October cy Rose, Tulsa, appel- Randall E. hearing on 10 was set for November

lant. stipulations Upon above Smith, & Smith Tul- Phillip Smith K. fact, were scheduled to sub- briefs sa, appellee. mitted, the matter was taken under by the Court. advisement LAVENDER, Justice: appellant’s court found that The trial I. failure file a claim for debt within appellee’s publication Appellant, Tulsa Collection the time noted Professional Services, Inc., Ever- assigned of the estate of H. a debt owed notice to creditors Jr., Pope,

ett barred the assertion of the necessary expenses administration, claim. The trial court appellant’s denied but he is obliged pay any other application and this ensued. any legacy until, debt or prescribed as chapter, has been or- appeal, On trial this dis- dered the court. pute was characterized as a statutory interpretation. Appellee relied Both appellee argued au- upon general chapter the probate in the thorities jurisdictions from other concern- governing code against estate; claims the ing the construction of statutes similar to specifically pro- O.S.1971 which section 594. Some authorities had found in pertinent part: vided such a statute to relieve necessity the Every a claim.1 Appellee’s executor or must, authority administrator had immediately found that appointment, failure to give timely his file a claim had notice to the resulted in the deceased, being creditors of the claim despite barred requiring persons presence all the having of a statute claims similar to section Appellee said 594.2 present deceased to also cited from this Court’s same, necessary vouchers, with the statements in State ex rel. Central State such administrator, executor or Hospital Reed,3 at the Memorial Griffin place of business, his residence or to be effect that: specified notice, in the (2) within two purpose The of the nonclaim statute months from the date publica- of the first O.S.1971 is to [58 facilitate the § 333] notice; tion of said such notice must be handling and closing of leg- estates. The published in some newspaper in said islature has importance considered the county once (2) each week for two con- question this in its amendment of the secutive weeks.... reducing statute of time with- which the may O.S.1971 provided which be filed from four pertinent part: months to two Clearly months. this is an expression of legislative concern

If a claim arising upon a contract here- expediting and disposing of adminis- made, tofore be not within the tration of estates delay. without notice, time limited in the it is barred forever, .... The trial court concluded that a construc- tion of section 594 which would have the Appellant, on hand, the other relied on allowing effect of certain claims to subchapter probate govern- code maintained outside the time limits of the payments of the debts the estate. provisions nonclaim contrary would be Appellant argued that 58 O.S.1971 594 legislative intent provi- behind those dispensed with the requirement that a sions as set forth in Central State claim be filed in connection with the ex- Griffin Hospital. appeal, Memorial On penses Court of the last illness. pro- Section 594 Appeals, IV, Division affirmed the trial vides: ruling. court’s The executor administrator, or as soon as he has hands, sufficient funds in his In reviewing the decisions of the courts expenses, and the below we find the reasoning applied to this expenses of sickness, the last and the of law to be correct. In the case allowance made to family of the dece- Rogers Commission,4 v. Oklahoma Tax dent. He retain in his hands the we stated in syllabus: Court’s particularly authorities upon by Bachand, relied section 594 was In re Estate Estate, were In re Skillman’s 146 Iowa (S.D.1981). N.W.2d 140 (1910); 125 N.W. Knapp, Wolfe Iowa 103 N.W. 369 In re Hansen's (Okla.1972). 3. 493 P.2d Estate, 55 Utah 184 P. 197 (Okla.1952). 4. 263 P.2d 409 authority presented by The appellee support proposition regarding the construction of statutes, harmo- decisions of this Court6 other courts7 In construction confusion, sought. given that actual notice be is to be ny, not Appellant argued these circumstances. parts acts true rule that when two apply the bar of the susceptible nonclaims reasonably of a of acts are of actual statute absence that will effect to both construction deprive known creditor would that known each, without violence the words process. creditor due prefer- either, adopted in it should be reasonable, which, though ence to one supplemental opinion rehearing In a there is a leads to the conclusion Appeals rejected argu- the Court of conflict. rehearing. supple- ment and denied opinion argu- mental it was stated that the properly noted the Court of As procedurally ment defective as was statutory of 58 Appeals, framework initially petition rehearing. raised in through constitutes a O.S.1971 §§ Appeals then dismissed the Court safeguards against invalid and system of argument ground on that the there was no estate, against an as well improper claims appellant to that did not evidence show system expedite to the ad designed as a of probate proceed- actual notice the have of estates. To find that ministration these ings. some claims to be section 594 would allow system this would di maintained outside Ap the of We first address Court of rectly the clear intent these conflict with peals’ question that of assertion the due moreover, is, possible to read statutes. process inappropriate is procedurally for harmony. in provisions the Section cited question adequacy The of consideration. provides personal representa 594 that the goes of jurisdiction of notice to the estate of tive involving question A a court.8 matter illness soon as funds avail last jurisdiction should be considered even if a claim5 has proper when been able initially in reheari petition submitted presented therefore. ng.9 Appeals’ disposition The Court of

II. grounds pellant’s argument that support finding affirm- was no evidence to Following Appeals’ there Court notice appellant did not have actual in this ance of the trial court’s decision previously noted case, erroneous. We have appellant petitioned that court also affording proper rehearing, that the burden rehearing. petition In its responsibility raised, time, it is party on the whose for the first a due rests And, opera- alleged give that notice.10 since process argument on an fail- based provisions result in of the nonclaims probate pro- notice of tion ure actual might of what otherwise be ceedings necessity to file claims. the forfeiture and of the claims, pleading of meritorious burden Appellant appellee knew asserted compliance with the proof regarding the time notice the existence its claim at claiming rests on one provisions properly published pursuant to 58 O.S.1971 provisions.11 argued of those recent benefit Appellant 331. then Hill, (Okla.1975); Rouse, Inc., P.2d 358 Broadway See Pointer v. 536 174 5. See Reed v. Charles Sandlin, 522, (1935). P.2d 722 P.2d 392 Okl. see also Davis v. (Okla.1964). Co., Inc., 6. Cate Archon Oil 695 P.2d 1352 v. (Okla.1985). Co., Socony Oil P.2d at Mobil v. 10. Bomford Adams, 462 Missions v. 7. Mennonite Board of 2706, (1983); U.S. 77 L.Ed.2d 180 103 S.Ct. Mosely, 100 Nev. Continental Ins. Co. v. Coghill, Inc. P.2d 211 Hitt J.B. See P.2d 20 (Alaska Co., Socony 440 P.2d 713 Mobil Oil Bomford (Okla.1968). question of the notice Other summarily state courts have dis previously has not been 58 O.S.1971 331 missed the notion that appli Mullane However, Court. addressed cable in the context of notice to creditors sufficiency question of the of notice re- probate in proceedings. In two recent requirements quired process in to meet due cases, appellate applied state courts have operation the context of the of nonclaims analysis deny appli a more exhaustive in a statutes has been addressed number cation of Mullane their nonclaim stat Examining jurisdictions. the relation of Fessler, utes. re See In Estate the nonclaims statutes the line of cases Wis.2d 302 N.W.2d 414 originating v. Central with Mullane Hano- Farms, Kleweno, Inc. Gano v. Estate of Co.,12 culminating ver Bank and Trust (Kan. 2 Kan.App.2d 582 P.2d 742 recently most Board Mis- Mennonite App.1978). Washington Supreme Adams,13 clearly courts sions v. have Court, process faced the same due reasoning behind held that the those cases contention stated: applicable operation was not support of its contention that [the recently, Most nonclaims statutes.14 nonclaim does due not accord statute] Missouri, addressing Supreme Court of process law in goes that it no fur- applicability of due require publication ther than to of no- process set requirements forth the Unit- in newspaper, appel- tice to creditors following Supreme ed States Court cases lant cites Mullane v. Central Hanover Mullane, stated:15 Bank & Trust U.S. These cases make clear that when S.Ct. 94 L.Ed. 865. has That case rights person of a or interests are application no to such a statute as by judicial sought quasi- affected be applied Its doctrine was to a [ours]. judicial decree, process requires that due property rights being case where were reasonably person given notice be brought a court adjudication before person calculated to inform such as those beneficiaries under pending proceeding opportunity and an trusts, where and addresses However, appear object. and dowe such beneficiaries were to the known requiring not believe doctrine more trustee. The basis of the decision by publication notice than that afforded by publication that notice is not alone applied should to notice under non- process accord sufficient to due under The statutes. function served such circumstances. different, as is notice is the nature of the Appellant is the victim of its own right being Mullane, affected. and fault and nonaction its failure following it, person the cases to be comply mandatory with statute of was, effect, notified made an actual nonclaim for which the courts can party litigation by notice, to the and (Emphasis ours). it no relief. judgment operated the court di- Stout, 43 New York Merchandise Co. v. rectly person’s property. on that Notice (1953). 825, 863, Wash.2d 264 P.2d 864 under a nonclaim statute does not make agree a creditor this distinction be- party proceeding; with and statute, merely him that he nonclaim its notifies become lieve that the claim, potential barring one if he wishes. a creditor’s 652, 526, 306, Henderson, 12. 339 U.S. 70 S.Ct. 445 94 L.Ed. 865 National Bank v. 151 Mont. (1950). (1968); P.2d New York 574 Merchandise Inc., Stout, 43 Wash.2d 863 v. 264 P.2d Supra, note 7. (1953); Fessler, In re Estate 100 Wis.2d 302 N.W.2d 414 Wilkins, Leasing Corp. Ariz.App. v. Brunell 11 (1969); Farms, 462 P.2d 858 Gano Inc. v. Kleweno, Clinic, Inc., Kan.App.2d Estate 15. Estate Busch Ferrell-Duncan Estate Busch v. Ferrell-Duncan 700 S.W.2d at Clinic, Inc., (Mo.1985); S.W.2d Baker adjudicatory pro- entered this matter are VACATED. Or- constitute an does not process requirements ceeding. The due der of the trial court AFFIRMED. applicable not to these Múlleme proceedings. Section 473.360 probate HARGRAVE, ALMA WILSON self-executing of limitations. statute SUMMERS, JJ., concur. 346 S.W.2d 58 Krogsdale, See Rabin (Mo.1961); Organ, 329 S.W.2d Clark v. DOOLIN, V.C.J., I, dissents in Part (Mo. The bar created banc in Part II. concurs oper- limitations operation of a statute of any adjudicatory independently of ates KAUGER, JJ., OPALA and concur legislative expression is a process. I, in Part dissent Part II. litigants rais- policy prohibits from given expiration of a ing claims after SIMMS, C.J., HODGES, J., passage of time period of time. dissent. destroys right remedy itself Justice, DOOLIN, concurring Vice Chief potential claimant. See In re Estate Fessler, supra, at 420. II, dissenting 302 N.W.2d in Part to Part I. of (footnote omitted) ruling undoubtedly rep- The trial court’s probate nonclaim Oklahoma position resents the traditional of the Okla- statute, 333, like the statutes 58 O.S.1971§ Bar, requires compliance homa when it consideration in the Missouri case State, the non-claim statute of this cited, acts to cut off and the other cases O.S.1981, 331, According seq. et to this potential claims the decedent’s es requirement, if the claim for last illness be passage of time. It is the tate within the time limit of the required by giving of notice O.S.1971 section, 331 “it is barred forever.” running the time which starts position It is the of this Claimant that the operation of the nonclaims statu for the exceptions to of last illness are upon te.16 Since the action of the statute the non-claim statutes. nonadjudicatory in potential claims is nature, agree we with the 594 which We start with poten cited cases that actual notice of the states: operation tial of the statute of nonclaims is administrator, “The executor or as process.17 required to constitute due not has in his soon as he sufficient funds stipulated parties to this case hands, pay expenses, funeral must of personal representative of the estate sickness, expenses and the the last of Jr., Pope, published notice as H. Everett family to the of and the allowance made required by 58 O.S.1971 § He retain his the decedent. appellant failed to file the claims necessary expenses of adminis- hands the by initiated within any tration, obliged but he is not Upon the trial that notice. these facts until, legacy pre- any or other debt correctly ruled that the claims were court payment has chapter, in this scribed by operation of the nonclaims barred [emphasis ordered the court.” been statute. added.]

III. statute, commencing a direct This the executor or statement order and Supplemental Opinion on Re- Opinion and expenses IV, pay hearing Appeals, Division administrator of Court Busch, S.W.2d at footnote National Bank Ft. tate 16. Inman v. Western Worth, on rejected Okl. 200 P. 714 of Continental reject persuasive we too grounds we find upon Appellant of Conti- has relied the case 17. necessitates a con- that Continental the assertion sup- Mosely, supra, Co. v. note nental Ins. port opinion. in this trary that reached result regarding sufficiency argument its Missouri, Supreme Court of in Es- notice. The available, pertinent last illness when funds become Also and 312 of §§311 controlling expenses as to those and the Title 58 in the 1981 statutes. phrase, final which states he is not re- property Section 311 lists to be delivered quired pay any “to other debt” until or- family to the homestead, the deceased as dered the Court refers to antecedent surviving and states the husband or wife is prior debts contracted to the demise possess homestead, entitled to as are

and covered the non-claim statutes. the children if both husband and wife be deceased. The statute ends with this state- legislature, adoption pro- of the ment: previously bate code had no decided cases property “No such shall be liable for interpret- from the Dakotas or California1 any prior debts or claims whatever.” appears the enacted statute so there no (Thus differentiating again between impediment interpreta- a fresh or initial claims). debts and tion at this time. presents Title 58 O.S.A. 312 us with § distinguishes apart Section 594 and sets nemesis, our when, old “last illness” expenses of the “last illness” and creates a increasing property mentioned in the special preferred or debt status for such preceding section, (58 O.S.1981, 311), debts, expenses. speaks only states “there shall also be allowed and set claims. apart surviving wife or husband or specializ- Title 58 591 further minor child or children of the decedent all es and differentiates ordinary between personal such property money as is ex- claims incurred the decedent before de- empt by levy law from and sale on execu- mise priority when it fixes or sets be, tion ... any prior liable debts or payment order of of debts. decedent, claims except when Payment 591. Order Debts. available, there are no assets thereunto expenses. 1. Funeral necessary EXPENSES ILLNESS, charges OF HIS LAST expenses of the last sickness. _” [emphasis added]. ... Section 312 has not been heretofore in- ... terpreted, again gives expenses but it ... priority, special effect, the last illness ... preferred is entitled to debt status over 7. Demands or claims which are ordinary other claims. presented to the executor or adminis- we dealt with proved trator for an allowance or funeral, and referred to 1258 of the 1931 within months two after the first being controlling. statutes as Section 1258 publication of notice to creditors. O.S.1981, is now codified as 58 594. In § ... Estate, 1186, Wagner’s Re (Okl.1937),quotes Golden Gate Undertak- purpose Of what was the enactment of 94, Taylor, v.Co. 168 Ca. 141 P. Sections 2 and 7 of 591 if the act of the § (N.S.) 1152, 1915D, 52 A.L.R. Ann.Cas. Legislature special pre- did not intend a 742, which observed: ferred special position debt status and of claims, then, over the only, charge non-claim statutes? “Not is the for fu- § estate, Was the enactment of expenses 594 and 591 a neral a debt of the but §§ class, vain and long-forgot- preferred useless action of that is a debt of the first and Legislature? ten payable is as soon as the executor or (1981), 1. Historical note: The Probate Code in effect in held that a claim must be filed under a Although Oklahoma be traced from California statute such as our this case is § (See Huff, through persuasive, necessarily controlling the Dakotas Oklahoma it is not be- Supreme ruling years Probate Law Dakota, Court of South cause its comes more than 80 Bachand, adoption in Estate 307 N.W.2d 140 our of 58 Lastly, appellee’s argument funds in his that a has sufficient administrator claim filed for payment must be hands.” expenses ques- illness of last raises a new in true the Oklahoma Court In Re It is tion even to one as it seeks resolve the made the distinction Estate also Wagner’s How, light in before us. the rule stated funeral claim was not one made that a herein, to interpret are the courts and lifetime, in and no decedent his language commonly effect to in found wills little need for need be filed. There is specifically wherein the testator directs the distinction, ordinarily for one does obvious expenses my pay executor “to last expenses own incur the of one’s funeral not illness and funeral”? Such clauses are as importance case until death. and, long old as testaments themselves as in its classification of such a 594 debt lies they nature, in precatory as should are not debt, being preferred a one to be as treated orders the decedent be considered valid differently the executor. Since the preferred which direct of these “expense directly illness” phrase of last necessity ac- debts without the of further expenses” term follows the “funeral tion, filing of a such as the a claim. To statute, for ground there is little us to attempting put testator affairs his legislature suppose the intended that fu- inevitable, contemplates order he expenses paid neral could be without nothing than the is dearer assurance claim, expenses but so can, formal not provided, he has as well as he way, last illness. Stated another the lan- proper days care his final and medical emphasized guage Wagner’s Estate decent burial. These are matters I not now infuse uncer- statutory duty fu- which would administrator’s tainty. (i.e. preferred) out of the “first neral debts hands”; funds in his and inasmuch as both I funeral summary, would hold that expenses expenses of ill- last are expenses expenses last illness debts, preferred ness are undifferentiated such special debts of status. base is no a different

there basis for rule finding plain language of 58 O.S. each. upon the consider- 594 and broader services, importance of ation of the these statutes, I would find the Probate large. to society testator and at both 311, 312, special 591 and §§ Appeals of stated The Court of Louisiana specific acts which control over the Bar- very the matter well Succession of general statutes.2 This maxim or rubric (La.App.1970), when ry, 236 So.2d grafted long standing one of and should be said: ingrained to and in the law decedent’s underlie considerations Humanitarian estates. debt) (preferred priv- granting argue do away To 594 does not ilege high rank in of those favor filing a claim for necessity with the ren- whom claims are due for services beg question. is to ar- This of need. In the event dered in time ill-founded, I gument, which take to be death, rendering physician others (that begins accepting the desired result their are assured that those services necessary) a claim is as fact and then ordinary charges treated as will prove argument. fact uses that This payment. chance of debts with less illogical circular likely Such less intent is to make it obvious not, non-sequitur of a and it should deprived smacks much-needed that one will be therefore, question be used means to decide service of doubtful because fundamental, interpretation. payment, [parenthetical phrase statutory added] statute, general statutory special provisions, statute and not the Where there are one two Telephone special clearly applies. Southwestern Bell of which is includes the statute Co. v. Board, P.2d County controversy, prescribes Excise matter in different Oklahoma (Okl.1980). procedures general rules and those in from See also: Knapp, v. question N.W. 369 purported statutory right under Wolf

(Iowa 1905) Estate, O.S.1981, and In Re Hansen’s § (Utah 1919). 184 P. 197 my It is contention that under 58 O.S. 1981, 5964 this statute must be followed § Clearly, these are the same laudable in the instant case for the reason there is a goals by embodied our statute origi- disputed (or debt) against estate, claim probate law, nal of the drafters Oklahoma and that the executor or administrator and there is a clear intent to these two would be the amount of the preferred classes of debts status. That disputed claim into court because the opinion years comes some 79 peal pends. proof As further of the differ- and after genera- statehood two or more posture cases, ences in the of the two we probate lawyers tions of is argument no note there rejected never was a claim on reasoning that its and its ideals are invalid. which an action was based under 58 O.S. misinterpretation A of the law is no less the instant case. wrong longevity. for its If on the other hand a accounting final majority opinion quotes ex State rel. had been rendered and it had become final Hospital Reed, Central State Memorial 596, supra, Sec. would triggered. never be (Okl.1972).3 The same should our solution I quote believe the to be dicta for the to the case before today, us for we know says, action clause and as edited estate, West however, that “this pend- is ... still Co., Publishing prime its thrust is to estab- and is solvent delay so that a expeditor’s lish that a state institution subject closing ... is not an issue.”5 statute, O.S.1981, 331, same non-claim I suggest would that the rule to be estab- seq. any et other creditor. lished application pro- this case and for spectively should be: If a creditor fails to reading from know Central State make disputed known a claim or debt under Hospital, supra, that a claim was disal- facts and circumstances of this case years lowed some three after the notice to separate timely objection action or to a creditors given had been and an accounting final then no cause of action taken. alsoWe know that a claim was O.S.1981, arises under 58 594. This based on treatment of a wife for whose cause of rejected action is not a suit on a care responsible he was covering period claim, it equivalent is the years prior of twelve to his death. We without claim. know that claim was disallowed and that a (cid:127) separate action on the claim was com- My holding on necessity the issues of the approximately years menced three after no- might a claim render it unneces- tice to creditors. This is not the same fact sary allegation to address the second situation as in the instant case. The course failure of notice. Cate Archon Oil of action in the (Okl.1985); case at bar is bottomed on a 695 P.2d 1352 Mullane v. Cen- purpose remain, paid nonclaim statute O.S. [58 and there to be over to the thereto; or, handling party is to facilitate § 331] when he becomes entitled if closing legislature claim, of estates. The paid has con- he fails to establish his to be over importance sidered the in its distributed as the circumstances of the state reducing require. allowed, any amendment of the statute If creditor whose claim has been due, time within which the claim yet appears be filed from but is not and assets Clearly four months to legal two months. this is an to a deduction therefrom of the interest expression legislative run, yet concern for the for the time the claim has he is expediting disposing paid accordingly. payments of administration of entitled to be delay. estates provided without for in this section are not to be made insolvent, pro when the estate is unless a rata due, any any If there is claim not or contin- also, distribution is ordered. See gent estate, disputed thereof, part amount or such of the same as the holder would be due, quote entitled to if the claim were 5.This is from the creditor’s brief and absolute, paid unchallenged established or must be into the estate. MEMORANDUM OPINION Bank, 70 S.Ct. 339 U.S. Hanover tral v. Soco 94 L.Ed. Bomford WILSON, Justice: ALMA (Okl.1968). P.2d 713 ny Mobil Oil initially brought this support Appellees-Rambo cases Although, strongly I these Appellants-Hicks Proceedings refer suit civil Probate but believe mo- Appellees’ due to Court. On grant process that is Small Claims ence to tion, from the by the the action was removed cited The authorities parties. by the and was heard soundly Claims docket reasoning thereof is Small majority and money judgment District Court. A $650 convincing. Appellees rendered. favor of the Thereafter, Court awarded District herein, a rea- parties, Appellees prevailing attorney fee of $664.00. sonable alleg bring appeal, this Appellants now they entitled an award ing that $1,000, plus attorney fees in the amount the additional costs —an RAMBO, Billy Jr. Patricia W. approximately three times amount Rambo, Appellees, prevailing par Appellees awarded Appellees Despite fact ties. trial judgment in the awarded alone were Dewey Donna HICKS attempt convince Appellants Hicks, Appellants. prevailing party. are the they Court No. mere avail particularly note that the one form of remedial ability of more than Supreme of Oklahoma. Court action, does single cause of upon a relief can be abrogate rule that there 16, 1986. Dec. v. H.B. party. Quapaw only prevailing one Varnell, (Okl.App.1977). appears of law

No reversible error Rule judgment is affirmed 15, App. 2. 1.202(b), O.S.Supp.1984, Ch. AFFIRMED. LAVENDER,

DOOLIN, V.C.J., and JJ., SUMMERS, HARGRAVE and concur. J., HODGES,

SIMMS, C.J., and in result. concur KAUGER, JJ., dissent. OPALA

Case Details

Case Name: Tulsa Professional Collection Services, Inc. v. Pope

Court Name: Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Date Published: Nov 18, 1986

Citation: 733 P.2d 396

Docket Number: 62204

Court Abbreviation: Okla.