Case Title: Bank IV Oklahoma, N.A. v. Southwestern Bank & Trust Company

Citation: 

Docket Number: 86910

State: oklahoma

Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Date: 1997-03-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
Bank IV Oklahoma, N.A. v. Southwestern Bank & Trust Company  Bank IV Oklahoma, N.A. v. Southwestern Bank & Trust Company 1997 OK 31 935 P.2d 323 68 OBJ 995 Case Number: 86910 Decided: 03/18/1997 Supreme Court of Oklahoma BANK IV OKLAHOMA, N.A., Appellee, v. SOUTHWESTERN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, an Oklahoma Banking Corporation, Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT FOR OKLAHOMA COUNTY Leamon Freeman, District Judge ¶0 Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was granted by the District Court. Defendant appealed and Plaintiff moved to dismiss the appeal. On rehearing we hold that when a trial court's order disposing of a motion is silent as to prevailing party's duty to prepare journal entry, and a local rule requires prevailing party to do so, then the order is treated, for the purpose of time to appeal, as an order directing prevailing party to prepare a journal entry. REHEARING GRANTED AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL VACATED; MOTION FOR ORAL ARGUMENT DENIED; MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION DENIED; APPELLEE'S MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL DENIED WITH PREJUDICE TO RENEWAL AND APPEAL SHALL PROCEED A. Daniel Woska Gary R. Underwood Donya Hicks Dunn Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Attorneys for Appellant Edward O. Lee John W. Mee, III Truman E. Coe LEE & MEE Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Attorneys for Appellee SUMMERS, J. [935 P.2d 325] ¶1 Two banks are litigating which of them should bear the loss for a check drawn on a closed account. The merits of that dispute is not before us at this time. Our review today is limited to Bank IV's motion to dismiss Southwestern Bank's appeal. ¶2 The posture of the case is that a motion for summary judgment was sustained for Plaintiff, Bank IV, in the amount of $86,839.75, on December 29, 1995. The trial judge's order was handwritten on a court minute form and filed that date. However, the judge crossed out the word "minute" and wrote in the word "order". ¶3 Defendant/Appellant learned of the court's action by telephone, and later received a copy. We need not recite the other circumstances surrounding the December 29 filing, because if that order is the appealable one, even under Appellant's version and theory, its petition in error is one day out of time. The journal entry of judgment was filed January 12, 1996, which means that if it is the appealable order here, Appellant's petition in error of February 2 is in plenty of time. ¶4 Southwestern Bank filed its petition in error on February 2, 1996, and an amended petition in error on February 14, 1996. ¶5 Section 696.2 says in pertinent part: "The following shall not constitute a judgment, decree, or appealable order: . . . . informal statement of the proceeding and relief awarded, included, but not limited to . . . instructions for preparing the judgment, decree, or appealable order" ¶6 We recently held that "an order directing the prevailing party to prepare a journal entry or judgment of the court's decision makes that order containing the direction a non-appealable event." McMillian, 907 P.2d at 1036. Appellant Southwestern Bank argues on rehearing that Bank IV was required by local court rule to prepare a journal entry of judgment, and that this rule has the same effect as if it were specifically stated in the order of December 29th. We agree. ¶7 Rule 12 of the Seventh Judicial District in effect at the time of the December 29th order states in part: When a motion is ruled on, counsel for the prevailing party shall within ten (10) days thereafter prepare a journal entry of the ruling and present it to counsel for the adverse parties, and if it be approved by all the attorneys, it shall be presented to the court for signature. If counsel are unable to agree upon the form of journal [935 P.2d 326] entry, the prevailing party shall give notice of presentation and present the matter for settlement of journal entry at the next motion day of the division in which said matter was heard, or such other time as the assigned judge shall direct. (emphasis added) This local rule clearly requires counsel for the prevailing party, in this case Bank IV, to prepare the journal entry and present it to opposing counsel, in this case Southwestern's. ¶8 District Courts may impose a local rule that has the force and effect of law when it does not conflict with statute, the Oklahoma Constitution or U. S. Constitution. Texas Oklahoma Express v. Sorenson, 652 P.2d 285 , 287 (Okla.1982); Oklahoma County Sheriff v. Hunter, 615 P.2d 1007 , 1008 (Okla.1980). See Petuskey v. Freeman, 890 P.2d 948 , 950 (Okla.1995), where we discussed the statutory authority of a presiding judge, and 20 O.S.1991 Ch. 1, App. 2, Rule 8, providing that a chief judge of a district court has the power to adopt rules consistent with those adopted by the Supreme Court and the presiding judge. ¶9 Local rule 12 also states that: "Compliance with Rule 4 of The Rules for District Courts adopted by Supreme Court shall be mandatory." Rule 4 of the Rules for District Courts states in part that: "The ruling of the court on a motion shall be memorialized by an order prepared by the moving party, or as directed by the court, and shall be filed in the case." 12 O.S.Supp.1993 Ch. 2, App. Rule 4 at (f). Local Rule 12 is consistent with the Rules for the District Courts. Appellee, Bank IV, does not challenge the effectiveness of Rule 12, and we conclude that it has the force and effect of law. ¶10 One obvious purpose of certain local rules is to require conduct in the case by the parties without the necessity of the trial judge making a formal order to that effect. A judge in the Seventh Judicial District need not specifically state in a ruling on a motion that the prevailing party prepare the journal entry. The prevailing party is already required by local rule to prepare such an entry, and an order to that effect in such a ruling would be surplusage. Had the trial judge not wanted the prevailing party to prepare a journal entry, or wanted its order of December 29th to serve as the journal entry, the judge's order could have stated such. ¶11 We conclude that (1) when an order on a motion is silent as to the prevailing party's duty to prepare a journal entry, and (2) a local rule requires the prevailing party to prepare, circulate, and present a proposed journal entry within a specified time of the court's order, then the court's order has the same effect, for the purpose of time to file a petition in error, as an order of the court directing the prevailing party to prepare a journal entry. An order directing the preparation of a journal entry is not appealable, and because of this the order of December 29, 1995 was not the appealable event. Rather, the date on which the subsequent journal entry was filed began the countdown for appeal. McMillian v. Holcomb, 907 P.2d at 1036. ¶12 Southwestern Bank's petition in error was filed within thirty days of the date the journal entry was filed in the District Court. The appeal is timely. 12 O.S.Supp.1994 § 990A(A). Bank IV's motion to dismiss is denied with prejudice to its renewal. Southwestern Bank's motion for oral argument and motion for clarification are denied. The appeal shall proceed. ¶13 SUMMERS, V.C.J., HODGES, LAVENDER, HARGRAVE, WATT, JJ. - Concur ¶14 WILSON, J. - Concurs in part and dissents in part ¶15 KAUGER, C.J., SIMMS, OPALA, JJ. - Dissent FOOT