Wanner v. Wanner, 37363

Decision Date29 September 1959
Docket NumberNo. 37363,37363
PartiesHenry Richard WANNER, Plaintiff in Error, v. Norene F. WANNER, Defendant in Error.
CourtOklahoma Supreme Court

Syllabus by the Court

12 O.S.1955 Supp. § 972 requires that an appeal by case made be filed in this court within 20 days from the date the case made is settled and also requires that such appeal be filed within 3 months from the date of the rendition of the judgment or final order complained of (or lawful extension of such period). Both such requirements must be met in order to vest this court with jurisdiction of the appeal. In practical effect, this means that an appeal by case made must be filed in this court before the expiration of 20 days from the date the case made is settled or the expiration of 3 months from the rendition of the judgment or final order complained of (or lawful extension of such period), whichever occurs first.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Creek County, Bristow Division; G. B. Chuck Coryell, Judge.

Action for determination of amount due under judgment for child support. Judgment for plaintiff for $3,000 and interest from which judgment the defendant appeals. Appeal dismissed.

Collins & Moore, Sapulpa, for plaintiff in error.

Arthurs, Blackstock & McMillan, Bristow, for defendant in error.

G. Ellis Gable, Floyd L. Rheam, Gerald B. Klein, T. Austin Gavin, John Rogers, Charles P. Gotwals, Jr., Tulsa, amici curiae.

IRWIN, Justice.

On May 5, 1942, a decree of divorce was entered in the Superior Court of Creek County, granting a divorce to the plaintiff, Norene F. Wanner from the defendant, Henry Richard Wanner. The decree vested exclusive care and custody of the two minor children of the parties in the plaintiff and directed the defendant to pay the sum of $40 per month for the support and maintenance of the minor children. The youngest child became twenty-one years of age on October 8, 1950, and had never married. Various amounts were paid under the judgment but no payments were made after October 8, 1950.

On November 16, 1955, plaintiff filed a motion in the divorce action wherein she prayed judgment for unpaid child support payments in the sum of $3,365, and for interest upon said unpaid installments at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date each was due, which amounted to $1,840.63, or for a total sum of $5,205.63, and costs. To this motion, the defendant filed a 'Response and Plea in Bar', in which he plead the judgment dormancy statute (12 O.S.1951, § 735), contending that the payment of any installment maturing more than five years previously could not be enforced by reason of the provisions of said statute. After a complete hearing on December 15, 1955, the trial court rendered judgment for plaintiff for $3,000, with interest from October 8, 1950, and directed the issuance of an execution. Motion for new trial was filed instanter and overruled on the same day. From the judgment the defendant has appealed.

The appeal was filed herein on May 15, 1956, and on June 7, 1956, the plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss, setting up lack of jurisdiction of this Court. The motion was denied. However, the fundamental question of jurisdiction of this Court has been questioned and must be determined. See Keenan v. Chastain, 64 Okl. 16, 164 P. 1145.

The record discloses that the case made was served on the attorneys for the plaintiff on February 7, 1956; that on February 23, 1956 the attorneys for plaintiff and defendant signed a stipulation as to its correctness, and on the same date the trial judge settled and signed it on the stipulation of the attorneys and the case made was filed in the office of the Court Clerk of Creek County on the same day. No further action was taken toward perfecting the appeal until the 10th day of May, 1956, when the defendant filed a motion for additional time to commence proceedings in error. Notice was served on the attorneys for the plaintiff and on May 11, 1956, after a hearing thereon, the court granted an extension of time to May 15, 1956, in which to lodge the appeal in the Supreme Court.

The question to be determined is: Does this Court obtain jurisdiction where the petition in error with case made attached is not filed in this Court within 20 days after the case made is signed and settled by the trial judge?

Title 12 O.S.1957 Supp. § 972, effective August, 1955, is as follows:

'All proceedings by case made for reversing, vacating or modifying judgments or final orders shall be commenced within twenty (20) days from the date the case made is settled; provided, however, that such proceedings must be commenced within three (3) months from the rendition of the judgment or final order complained of, provided however, the trial court may in its discretion extend the period of time not to exceed six (6) months from the date of judgment. * * *'

We have heretofore interpreted both provisions of the above section of our statutes. In the case of Smith v. Independent School District No. 16, Payne County Okla., Okl., 321 P.2d 430, 432, the trial court extended the time in which to file the appeal in the Supreme Court to and including August 31, 1957. The case made was served within proper time and settled by the court on July 15, 1957. Thereafter, the case was filed in this court on August 10, 1957, some 26 days after the date of the settlement of the case made. A motion was made to dismiss the appeal for the reason that the same was not filed in this court within 20 days from the date the case made was settled. In sustaining the motion and dismissing the appeal, we said:

'* * * The above cited statute * * * contains two separate and distinct requirements with reference to the time within which an appeal must be filed in this court. The first such requirement is that such appeal must be commenced within twenty days from the date the case-made is settled. The second requirement is that such appeal must be commenced within three months from the date of the rendition of the judgment or final order complained of, but the trial court is authorized to extend such three months period to not exceeding six months. Both of such requirements must be met in order to vest this court with jurisdiction of the appeal.'

And in the syllabus we held:

'12 O.S.1955, Supp., § 972, requires that an appeal by case-made be filed in this court within 20 days from the date the case-made is settled and, also requires that such appeal be filed within three months from the date of the rendition of the judgment or final order complained of (or lawful extension of such period). Both of such requirements must be met in order to vest this court with jurisdiction of the appeal. In practical effect, this means that an appeal by case-made must be filed in this court before the expiration of 20 days from the date the case-made is settled or the expiration of three months from the rendition of the judgment or final order complained of (or lawful extension of such period), whichever occurs first.'

See also Video Independent Theatres, Inc. v. Walker, Okl., 308 P.2d 958; Albert v. Card, Okl., 317 P.2d 766; Jordan v. Snakard, Okl., 320 P.2d 396; Selected Investments Corp. v. Ford, Okl., 320 P.2d 1113; and Campbell v. Campbell, Okl., 325 P.2d 81; Curry v. Haynes, Okl., 326 P.2d 816.

The defendant contends that the order entered by the trial judge on May 11, 1956, granting additional time in which to perfect the appeal (under authority of Title 12 O.S.1957 Supp. § 962), and the appeal being filed within the time allowed by the extension, vested this Court with jurisdiction. Defendant also contends that the validity of an order of extension of time which is regular on its face cannot be reviewed by this Court on a motion to dismiss but can be raised only by cross appeal and cites, Rogers v. Bass & Harbour Co., 47 Okl. 786, 150 P. 706; Pure Oil Co. v. Quarles, 183 Okl. 418, 82 P.2d 970; Hargrave v. Greer, 182 Okl. 608, 79 P.2d 221; Spaulding v. Beidleman, 49 Okl. 197, 152 P. 367; O'Neil Engineering Co. v. City of Lehigh, 61 Okl. 57, 159 P. 497; and Bruner v. Eaton, 121 Okl. 209, 249 P. 734.

Defendants' authorities relate to those cases where it was necessary for this Court to review the evidence upon which an order was entered extending the time to perfect an appeal and were promulgated prior to the 1955 amendment of Sec. 972, supra, providing that all proceedings by case made for reversing, vacating or modifying judgments or final orders shall be commenced within 20 days from the date the case made is settled. By this enactment the 20-day period became a jurisdictional requirement and was not present in the above cases. In those cases the orders extending the time in which to perfect the appeals were regular on their face and lack of jurisdiction was not shown by the record and the procedure for attacking the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the orders were made was by cross-appeal. In the case at bar the case made shows it was not filed within 20 days from the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • DeWees v. Cedarbaum
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • March 5, 1963
    ...within the six months period and because of the dissents in Mitchell v. Great Western Oil and Gas Co., Okl., 347 P.2d 1039; Wanner v. Wanner, Okl., 350 P.2d 241; and Auto Convoy Co. v. Smith, Okl., 351 P.2d 1053, and the able briefs presented in this case, we have concluded that we must re-......
  • McSpadden v. Mahoney
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • December 15, 1964
    ...and no reasonable excuse is offered for such failure, the proceedings in error will be dismissed.' In the recent case of Wanner v. Wanner, Okl., 350 P.2d 241, this Court discussed the two requirements of 12 O.S.1955, Supp. § 972, (now 12 O.S.1961 § 972) that an appeal by case-made be filed ......
  • Collins v. Wanner
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • May 28, 1963
    ...number of months, the opinion was withdrawn and an opinion was promulgated dismissing the appeal. This opinion is reported in Wanner v. Wanner, Okl., 350 P.2d 241. The basis of the opinion was that under the provisions of 12 O.S.Supp. § 972, filing of the petition in error with casemade att......

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