Woods v. Woods, 79015
Decision Date | 12 May 1992 |
Docket Number | No. 79015,79015 |
Citation | 830 P.2d 1372,1992 OK 64 |
Parties | Steven Michael WOODS, Appellant, v. Brenda Kay WOODS, Appellee. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
An Appeal from the District Court of Leflore County; Michael D. Lee, Judge.
Appellant husband, plaintiff below, seeks to appeal, inter alia, the child custody provisions of a decree of divorce filed in the district court on January 3, 1992. The petition in error was timely mailed by certified mail, however, the envelope containing the petition in error was addressed:
"Court of Appeals
357 Denver N. Davis (sic) Bldg.
1915 N. Stiles Avenue
Oklahoma City, Ok. 73105"
The petition in error was received by the Court of Appeals on February 3rd, the thirtieth day to file the petition in error occurred on February 2, a Sunday, and by statute, the appellant had until the next day, Monday, to properly commence his appeal. 25 O.S.1991, § 82.1.
Appellant's petition in error was forwarded by the Court of Appeals from the Denver Davison Building the Clerk of the Supreme Court at the Capitol Building where it was received and filed by the Clerk on February 4th, 1992, one day late.
Title 12, O.S.1991, § 990A, provides:
(E.A.)
Civil Appellate Rule 1.14, 12 O.S.1991, Ch. 15, App. 2, provides that an appeal is commenced by filing the petition in error "with the Clerk of this Court" within the time prescribed by Rule 1.11, i.e., within thirty days from the date the judgment is filed of record with the clerk of the district court.
Filing a petition in error with the Clerk by certified mail is accomplished on the date shown by the post mark or other proof of the date of mailing. 12 O.S.1991, § 990A(A). However, this provision presumes the envelope containing the petition in error is properly addressed to the Clerk of the Supreme Court, which was not done here.
Oklahoma's Pleading Code, 12 O.S.1991, § 2004(C)(2)(b) mandates that service of process by mail can only be effected when delivery is restricted to the addressee.
The mailing requirement of § 990A is similar to the "mailbox rule" in contract law. The restatement of Contracts 2nd § 66 reads that "an acceptance sent by mail or otherwise from a distance is not operative when deposited, unless it is properly addressed...." (E.A.) The mailbox rule was first articulated in Adams v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Mothershed
...basis for a court of this state to appoint a guardian or issue a protective order for an adult."). 62. See, e.g., Woods v. Woods, 1992 OK 64, 830 P.2d 1372, 1374 (The filing of the petition in error within thirty days of the judgment or order appealed is a jurisdictional prerequisite to the......
-
State Ex Rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Mothershed
...basis for a court of this state to appoint a guardian or issue a protective order for an adult.”). FN62. See, e.g., Woods v. Woods, 1992 OK 64, 830 P.2d 1372, 1374 (The filing of the petition in error within thirty days of the judgment or order appealed is a jurisdictional prerequisite to t......
-
Velasco v. Ruiz
...was responsible for sending a copy of the summons and petition by certified mail with delivery restricted to the addressee. See Woods v. Woods, 1992 OK 64, ¶ 5, 830 P.2d 1372, 1374 ("Oklahoma's Pleading Code, 12 O.S.1991 2004(C)(2)(b) mandates that service of process can only be effected wh......
-
Johnson v. Tony's Town Mister Quik
...of the petition in error." [Emphasis added.]For application of the mailbox rule in Oklahoma's extant jurisprudence, see Woods v. Woods, Okl., 830 P.2d 1372, 1374 (1992); Woody v. State ex rel. Dept. of Corrections, Okl., 833 P.2d 257, 258 (1992).6 The mailbox rule's general impact is not di......