Jerry Scott Drilling Co., Inc. v. Scott, 60803
| Decision Date | 10 October 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 60803,60803 |
| Citation | 781 P.2d 826,1989 OK 131 |
| Parties | JERRY SCOTT DRILLING COMPANY, INC., Appellant, v. J. Wendell SCOTT, C.W. Scott and Laura Susan Scott, Appellees. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Appeal from the District Court of Seminole County, Gary R. Brown, Trial Judge.
Appellant, an oil and gas drilling company, initiated a proceeding under the Oklahoma Surface Damage Act, 52 O.S.Supp. 1988, §§ 318.2-318.9, seeking to determine damage to property that would be utilized in drilling operations sought to be commenced. Appellees, J. Wendell and Laura Susan Scott (father and daughter) were alleged during the proceeding to be the owners of the property involved. Appellee, C.W. Scott was also alleged to have an ownership interest in the property, but the record shows his interest was that of a life tenant and that he is deceased. After appraisers returned their report as to damages both Appellant and Appellee, J. Wendell Scott filed exceptions to the report. Scott also filed a timely demand for jury trial, which has not yet been held. The trial court overruled all exceptions to the appraisers' report and entered an order confirming the report. Appellant appealed from this order. Held: The appeal of Appellant is premature in that the order appealed from is not a final order in light of the timely demand for jury trial, which has not been held.
APPEAL DISMISSED AS PREMATURE.
Steed, Gipson, Johnston, McMains & Parrish by Larry J. McMains, Seminole, for appellant.
Harbour, Leonard & Osborn by Cloyce Ray Osborn, Oklahoma City, for appellees.
The issue we decide in this case is whether the trial court order appealed from, one which confirmed a report of appraisers under the Oklahoma Surface Damage Act (52 O.S.Supp.1988, §§ 318.2-318.9), was a final order subject to immediate appeal to this Court. We have determined the order was interlocutory in nature rather than final and, thus, we dismiss the appeal of Appellant as prematurely taken, as requested by Appellees.
Appellant, Jerry Scott Drilling Company, Inc., was the holder of an oil and gas leasehold interest covering property which included a ten (10) acre tract in which the surface was held by Appellees. Appellant filed a petition in the District Court of Seminole County against Appellee, J. Wendell Scott, alleging that it had negotiated with him regarding payment for surface damages in connection with proposed drilling operations on the property, but that they had been unable to reach an agreement. 1 Appellant's petition requested the appointment of appraisers pursuant to the Act.
Appraisers were appointed and instructed by the trial court. The appraisers returned a report finding the property had suffered or would suffer four thousand seven hundred dollars ($4,700.00) in permanent damage, and finding a total of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) in damages.
Appellant and Appellee, J. Wendell Scott, timely filed exceptions to the report of the appraisers. Mr. Scott also filed a timely demand for jury trial pursuant to 52 O.S.Supp.1988, § 318.5(F). No jury trial has been held in the matter. Approximately eighty (80) days after the appraisers' report was filed Appellant moved the trial court to join Laura Susan Scott and C.W. Scott as additional parties defendant upon the allegation that they were necessary parties to a full and complete adjudication of the matter. This motion was granted by the trial court and Ms. Scott was served with process approximately three (3) months after the report of appraisers had been filed in the case. The summons in regard to C.W. Scott was returned unserved, with a notation that he was deceased. Two (2) weeks after Ms. Scott filed an answer and cross-petition in the case the trial court order confirming the report of the appraisers was filed in the case. On the same day the order was filed Appellant filed its petition in error in this Court. Appellees moved to dismiss the appeal as premature, primarily for the reason that because jury trial had been demanded and not held as to assessment of damages the order confirming the report of appraisers was not a final order subject to appeal. We agree as will be explained below.
52 O.S.Supp.1988, § 318.6 provides in pertinent part as follows:
Any aggrieved party may appeal from the decision of the court on exceptions to the report of the appraisers or the verdict rendered upon jury trial. Such appeal shall not serve to delay the prosecution of the work on the premises in question if the award of the appraisers or jury has been deposited with the clerk for the use and benefit of the surface owner. In case of review or appeal, a certified copy of the final order or judgment shall be transmitted by the clerk to the appropriate county clerk to be filed and recorded.
Appellant attempts to rely on the first sentence of the above provision to argue that an appeal is appropriate from either a ruling on exceptions to the report of appraisers or the verdict of a jury, apparently regardless of whether or not a decision on exceptions is a final order. On the other hand Appellees argue that because a timely filed request for jury trial has been made the damages found by the appraisers, as confirmed by the trial court, are still subject to revision or redetermination by a jury. Thus, they assert the order confirming the report of appraisers is not final and the instant appeal premature. We believe the view of Appellant is incorrect and the Legislature never intended an appeal to lie from the ruling of a trial court on exceptions unless said order could be deemed to be a final order. Primarily because of the pendency of a demand for jury trial the order appealed from is not imbued with the attributes of finality such that it is subject to immediate appeal to this Court.
The primary canon of legislative interpretation is to discern the intent of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Dept. of Transp. v. Mehta
...is appealable as a final order. See McMillian v. Holcomb, 1995 OK 117, ¶ 3, 907 P.2d 1034, 1035-36 (citing Jerry Scott Drilling Co., Inc. v. Scott, 1989 OK 131, 781 P.2d 826); Oklahoma Gas & Elect. Co. v. Chez, 1974 OK 99, 527 P.2d 165 (trial court's decision in a condemnation proceeding ad......
-
State ex rel. Regents v. McCloskey Bros.
...McMillian, this cause concerns a challenge to the necessity of the taking, not the sufficiency of the award. See also Jerry Scott Drilling Co., Inc. v. Scott, 1989 OK 131, ¶ 9, 781 P.2d 826, discussing the right to immediate appeal in condemnation cases when the trial court has ruled on exc......
-
McMillian v. Holcomb, 82999
...5918 E. 31 Street Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135 Stephen Gray 2865 E. Skelly Dr., Ste 205 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74105 1 Jerry Scott Drilling Co., Inc. v. Scott, 781 P.2d 826, 828 n. 3 (Okla.1989); Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company v. Chez, 527 P.2d 165, 167 (Okla.1974); Watchorn Basin Assn. v. Oklahoma Gas ......
-
Doyle v. Smith
...before the trier of fact has reached a final determination, especially when the facts dictate the legal conclusion. Jerry Scott Drilling Co., Inc. v. Scott, 1989 OK 131, ¶¶ 7, 10, 781 P.2d 826, 828-29. In ruling on the appeal of nonfinal orders and judgments, the Oklahoma Supreme Court, in ......
-
THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYZING MULTIPLE SURFACE USE ISSUES
...Id. For cases dealing with some of the problems created by this complex procedural mechanism see Jerry Scott Drilling Co., Inc. v. Scott, 1989 OK 131, 781 P.2d 826, 106 O.&G.R. 540; Stephens Production Co. v. Taylor, 1997 OK CIV APP 70, 949 P.2d 301, 131 O.&G.R. 411. [304] See Bays Explorat......
-
CHAPTER 1 THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYZING MULTIPLE SURFACE USE ISSUES
....Id. For cases dealing with some of the problems created by this complex procedural mechanism see Jerry Scott Drilling Co., Inc. v. Scott, 1989 OK 131, 781 P.2d 826, 106 O.&G.R. 540; Stephens Production Co. v. Taylor, 1997 OK CIV APP 70, 949 P.2d 301, 131 O.&G.R. 411. [294] .Id. For cases d......