Patterson v. Beall

• Decision Date: 14 November 2000
• Docket Number: No. 92,399.,92,399.
• Citation: 19 P.3d 839,2000 OK 92
• Parties: Jerry PATTERSON, dba Patterson Pest and Weed Control, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Lonnie and Bernice BEALL, Defendants/Appellees.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

19 P.3d 839

2000 OK 92

Jerry PATTERSON, dba Patterson Pest and Weed Control, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Lonnie and Bernice BEALL, Defendants/Appellees.

No. 92,399.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

November 14, 2000.

Justin LaMunyon, Faulkner Law Firm, Enid, OK, for Appellant.

Steven D. Singer, Enid, OK, for Appellees.

BOUDREAU, Justice:

¶ 1 We are presented with two issues on certiorari. First, are summary judgment motions under Rule 13 of the Rules for District Courts of Oklahoma, 12 O.S. (1991), ch. 2, app. (Rule 13), inconsistent with the purpose of the Small Claims Procedure Act, 12 O.S. § 1751 et seq.—namely, the efficient and prompt disposition of small claims?¹ We may review claims which relate to alleged deprivations of due process of law despite a failure to preserve error. Bottles v. State ex rel. Oklahoma State Bd. of Medical Licensure and Supervision, 1996 OK 59, ¶ 4, 917 P.2d 471, 472; Pettit v. American Nat'l Bank, 649 P.2d 525, 529 (Okla.1982). Second, does the appraiser's alleged conduct, if proven, constitute a deceptive trade practice or an unfair trade practice under the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act, 15 O.S. (1991), § 751 et seq.?

¶ 2 We hold that summary judgment motions are inconsistent with the purpose of the Small Claims Procedure Act and that the real estate appraiser's alleged conduct, if proven, constitutes an unfair trade practice. We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I FACTS

¶ 3 Jerry Patterson, dba Patterson Pest and Weed Control (Mr. Patterson), performed a termite inspection for Lonnie and Bernice Beall (collectively, Mrs. Beall). Mr. Patterson billed Mrs. Beall $105.00. She refused to pay the bill because, according to her, she had not asked him to perform a termite inspection but rather had requested merely a free estimate. The dispute escalated. He filed a $105.00 lien against her property. She then asserted she had performed a real estate appraisal for him, demanded payment of $115.00 for the appraisal and attempted to file a $115.00 lien against his property. He denied having requested an appraisal and denied she had performed an appraisal for him. He complained about her to the Oklahoma Real Estate Commission. She complained about him to the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture. Both entities declined to pursue the complaints. He then sued her for $4,500.00 in the small claims division—for breach of contract ($105.00) and for alleged violations of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act. She filed counterclaims against him for $4,500.00—for breach of contract ($115.00), for alleged violations of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act, for specific performance and to quiet title.

¶ 4 Mrs. Beall eventually paid Mr. Patterson $105.00 and both parties released their respective liens. Mrs. Beall also eventually voluntarily dismissed her Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act counterclaim against Mr. Patterson.

¶ 5 The trial court permitted the parties to file summary judgment motions. In a written order the trial court addressed all remaining claims and counterclaims. With respect to Mrs. Beall's counterclaims, the trial court concluded that the remedies of specific performance and quiet title are outside the scope of the Small Claims Procedure Act. The trial court then granted summary judgment against Mrs. Beall on her counterclaim for breach of contract. Mrs. Beall did not appeal from these adverse rulings.

¶ 6 With respect to Mr. Patterson's claims, the trial court found the parties settled Mr. Patterson's breach of contract claim when Mrs. Beall paid Mr. Patterson $105.00. The trial court then granted summary judgment against Mr. Patterson on his claim that Mrs. Beall violated the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act. The trial court found that Mrs. Beall's alleged conduct was not deceptive and did not constitute a trade practice under the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act. Mr. Patterson appealed.²

II STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 7 We review the trial court's legal rulings de novo. Manley v. Brown, 1999 OK 79, 989 P.2d 448

. De novo review requires an independent, non-deferential re-examination of another tribunal's record and findings.

III

SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS UNDER RULE 13 ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE SMALL CLAIMS PROCEDURE ACT—THE EFFICIENT AND PROMPT DISPOSITION OF SMALL CLAIMS.

A The Small Claims Procedure Act

¶ 8 The Small Claims Procedure Act, 12 O.S. (1991), § 1751 et seq. (the Act), provides a special procedure for certain actions where the amount of money sought to be recovered does not exceed four thousand five hundred dollars ($4,500.00).³ It provides an informal procedure "to facilitate the access of parties to simple, inexpensive and speedy justice." Johnson v. Scott, 1985 OK 50, 702 P.2d 56, 59. The unmistakable public policy goal of the Act is to provide small claims forums as "people's courts, uncomplicated by the formal demands of superior courts." Thayer v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 1980 OK 95, 613 P.2d 1041, 1044.⁴

¶ 9 In the interest of promoting the prompt and efficient disposition of small claims actions, the Act allows no formal pleadings other than a small claims affidavit and in some circumstances an answer. 12 O.S. (1991), § 1758.⁵ The Act requires that the trial be set not more than sixty days nor less than ten days from the commencement of the action. 12 O.S. (2000), § 1756.⁶ If the defendant desires to assert a counterclaim or setoff by verified answer, the Act requires the defendant to file the answer with the court clerk not later than seventy-two hours prior to the trial so as not to delay the trial. 12 O.S. (1991), § 1758.

¶ 10 The Act prohibits all depositions, interrogatories and all other discovery procedures except after judgment in aid of execution. 12 O.S. (1991), § 1760.

¶ 11 The Act mentions one pretrial motion only. 12 O.S. (1991), § 1757. It allows the defendant to file a motion to transfer the small claims action to the regular civil docket. Lee Wayne Co., Inc. v. Pruitt, 1976 OK CIV APP 23, 550 P.2d 1374. The Act requires that the motion to transfer be filed and defendant be given notice of the motion at least forty-eight hours prior to the trial. 12 O.S. (1991), § 1757. The granting of the motion is discretionary with the trial court. Id.

¶ 12 The Act does not allow new parties to be joined and it prohibits other parties from intervening in the action. 12 O.S. (1991), § 1760.

¶ 13 The Act requires that if either party desires a jury the party must notify the court clerk in writing at least two working days before the trial so as not to delay the trial. 12 O.S. (1991), § 1761. Regardless of the whether the trial is jury or non-jury, the "rules of evidence are relaxed." Prudential Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Allen, 1976 OK 122, 554 P.2d 1365, 1366; Black v. Littleton, 1975 OK CIV APP 1, 532 P.2d 486, 487. The hearing and disposition of a small claims action is "informal with the sole object of dispensing speedy justice between the parties." 12 O.S. (1991), § 1761.

B Motions for Summary Judgment under Rule 13

¶ 14 Motions for summary judgment are governed by Rule 13 of the Rules for District Courts of Oklahoma, 12 O.S. (1991), ch. 2, app. The standard for a summary judgment specified in Rule 13 is that there is no substantial controversy as to any material fact as shown by the affidavits and discovery materials attached to the motion. Hamilton v. Allen, 1993 OK 46, 852 P.2d 697.⁷

¶ 15 Rule 13(a) allows a party to serve a motion for summary judgment anytime after the filing of the action, except that if the action has been set for trial the motion must be served at least twenty days before the trial date. The motion must be accompanied by a concise written statement of the material facts as to which the movant contends no genuine issue exists and must explain why the movant believes summary judgment should be granted. The statement must refer to evidentiary materials upon which the movant relies and copies of these materials must be attached to the statement. Rule 13(a). With the exception of affidavits, these materials almost always take the form of discovery responses such as excerpts of depositions, answers to interrogatories and to requests for admissions, and documents that have been produced in response to discovery requests. Id.

¶ 16 Rule 13(b) allows the opposing party an opportunity, within fifteen days after service of the motion, to serve upon the moving party and file with the court clerk a written statement in response to the motion. The response must include a concise written statement of the material facts as to which the opposing party contends there is a genuine issue and the reasons for denying the motion. Id. The written statement must set forth and number each specific material fact that is claimed to be in controversy and must include references to the specific pages and paragraphs or lines in the attached affidavits and discovery materials upon which the opposing party relies. Id.

¶ 17 Further, Rule 13(d) allows a party opposing a motion for summary judgment to seek a continuance by submitting an affidavit explaining why he or she cannot present facts essential to justify opposition to the motion. The trial court may order a continuance to permit the opposing party to obtain affidavits or to conduct additional discovery.

C Analysis

¶ 18 "The primary goal of statutory construction is to determine legislative intent. That intent is to be ascertained from the statute in light of its general purpose and object. It is presumed that the Legislature has expressed its intent in a statute and that it intended what is so expressed." TXO Production Corp. v. Oklahoma Corp. Comm'n, 1992 OK 39, 829 P.2d 964, 968-69.

¶ 19 In our view motions for summary judgment under Rule 13 are inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the Small Claims Procedure Act—the efficient and prompt disposition of claims.

¶ 20 First, the application of Rule 13's timing requirements to small...