Slagell v. Slagell, No. 91676.

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
Writing for the CourtHARGRAVE, V.C.J.
Citation2000 OK 5,995 P.2d 1141
Decision Date25 January 2000
Docket NumberNo. 91676.
PartiesHarold SLAGELL, Plaintiff/Appellant v. Walter SLAGELL, Executor of the Estate of Maurice Slagell, Deceased, Defendant/Appellee.

995 P.2d 1141
2000 OK 5

Harold SLAGELL, Plaintiff/Appellant
v.
Walter SLAGELL, Executor of the Estate of Maurice Slagell, Deceased, Defendant/Appellee

No. 91676.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

January 25, 2000.


Randolph S. Meacham, RANDOLPH S. MEACHAM, P.C., Clinton, Oklahoma, for Appellant.

F.H. Wright, F.H. WRIGHT LAW OFFICE, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Appellee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

HARGRAVE, V.C.J.

¶ 1 The issue is whether the appeal should be dismissed because of appellant's failure to preserve any issues for review where no errors were raised in his motion for new trial. Finding that the case is controlled by Horizons, Inc. v. Keo Leasing Co., 1984 OK 24, 681 P.2d 757 (Okla.1984), we granted certiorari and now vacate the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals and dismiss the appeal.

¶ 2 Appellant filed an action in 1988 to terminate a family partnership. One of the brothers, Maurice, died in an automobile accident

995 P.2d 1142
during the pendency of the suit, and the appellee was appointed executor of the estate. Appellee filed a wrongful death claim which was settled for $145,000. The funds were deposited in a bank account in 1991. On December 14, 1992, the parties entered into a settlement agreement settling the partnership lawsuit. The Settlement Agreement contained a Mutual Release and Discharge Clause wherein the parties agreed to "remise, release and forever discharge" the other from any and all debts, demands, actions, etc. and liabilities whatsoever of every name and nature, whether known or unknown. . . for all time to this date." The agreement also contained a covenant not to sue

¶ 3 Appellee apparently distributed the $145,000 in 1996 to Maurice's brothers and sisters, except for the appellant, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 1053. In 1997, appellant Harold Slagell sued appellee, as executor of Maurice's estate, seeking his share of the wrongful death claim settlement. Both sides filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted the appellee's motion for summary judgment finding that, 1) the wrongful death proceeds attributable to Maurice's death were distributed in accordance with 12 O.S.1991 § 1053 and not under the terms of Maurice's will or trust, and 2) the plaintiff's claim to the wrongful death settlement proceeds was released by the terms of the Settlement Agreement entered into between the parties.

¶ 4 Appellant filed a motion for new trial which stated only that "the decision of the court is not sustained by the evidence, and is contrary to the law of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 practice notes
  • Hedrick v. Comm'r of the Dep't of Pub. Safety, No. 110199.
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • November 26, 2013
    ...required to rule out all theories of liability fairly comprised within the evidentiary materials before [it].’ ”); Slagell v. Slagell, 2000 OK 5, ¶ 8, 995 P.2d 1141, 1142 (points of law identified during hearing on motion for new trial may be reviewed on appeal since those points of law wer......
  • Andrew v. Depani-Sparkes, Case Number: 114082
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • May 16, 2017
    ...available to him at the time of the filing of his motion for a new trial but were not therein asserted.29 See, e.g., Slagell v. Slagell, 2000 OK 5, ¶¶7–8, 995 P.2d 1141, 1142 (appeal dismissed because assignments of error in the appeal were not raised by that party's motion for new trial an......
  • Indep. Sch. Dist. of Okla. Cnty. v. Hofmeister, No. 117,081
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • June 23, 2020
    ...6. That the verdict, report, or decision is not sustained by sufficient evidence, or is contrary to law...."See also Slagell v. Slagell , 2000 OK 5, ¶¶ 5-9, 995 P.2d 1141, 1142 (a new trial motion is insufficient unless its allegations inform the trial court of the specific defects for whic......
  • Beyrer v. The Mule, LLC, 118075
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • September 28, 2021
    ...in the motion before the trial court, and rule applied to a motion to reconsider construed as a motion for new trial); Slagell v. Slagell, 2000 OK 5, 995 P.2d 1141 (rule applied to dismiss appeal); Fed. Corp. v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 13 of Pushmataha Cty., 1978 OK CIV APP 55, 606 P.2d 1141,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
15 cases
  • Hedrick v. Comm'r of the Dep't of Pub. Safety, No. 110199.
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • November 26, 2013
    ...required to rule out all theories of liability fairly comprised within the evidentiary materials before [it].’ ”); Slagell v. Slagell, 2000 OK 5, ¶ 8, 995 P.2d 1141, 1142 (points of law identified during hearing on motion for new trial may be reviewed on appeal since those points of law wer......
  • Andrew v. Depani-Sparkes, Case Number: 114082
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • May 16, 2017
    ...available to him at the time of the filing of his motion for a new trial but were not therein asserted.29 See, e.g., Slagell v. Slagell, 2000 OK 5, ¶¶7–8, 995 P.2d 1141, 1142 (appeal dismissed because assignments of error in the appeal were not raised by that party's motion for new trial an......
  • Indep. Sch. Dist. of Okla. Cnty. v. Hofmeister, No. 117,081
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • June 23, 2020
    ...6. That the verdict, report, or decision is not sustained by sufficient evidence, or is contrary to law...."See also Slagell v. Slagell , 2000 OK 5, ¶¶ 5-9, 995 P.2d 1141, 1142 (a new trial motion is insufficient unless its allegations inform the trial court of the specific defects for whic......
  • Beyrer v. The Mule, LLC, 118075
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • September 28, 2021
    ...in the motion before the trial court, and rule applied to a motion to reconsider construed as a motion for new trial); Slagell v. Slagell, 2000 OK 5, 995 P.2d 1141 (rule applied to dismiss appeal); Fed. Corp. v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 13 of Pushmataha Cty., 1978 OK CIV APP 55, 606 P.2d 1141,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT