Title: CORTRIGHT v. CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY

State: oklahoma

Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Document:

CORTRIGHT v. CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY  CORTRIGHT v. CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY 1997 OK 158 951 P.2d 93 69 OBJ 47 Case Number: 88539 Decided: 12/23/1997 Mandate Issued: 01/29/1998 Supreme Court of Oklahoma CYNTHIA S. CORTRIGHT, Appellant, vs. THE CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY, OK a municipal corporation, Appellee.) ON APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT IN OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA, THE HONORABLE JAMES B. BLEVINS PRESIDING. [951 P.2d 94] ¶0 Cynthia Cortright filed notice of a governmental tort claim with the City of Oklahoma City to recover damages to her residence caused by a sewer back-up. Immediately thereafter, Cortright and the City commenced discussions of the claim. Upon the expiration of ninety days after the filing of notice, Cortright's attorney wrote a letter to the City setting forth his understanding that the claim would not be considered rejected by operation of law. After further discussions, the City denied the claim. Cortright filed a governmental tort claims action against the City and the City moved to dismiss the action as untimely. The district court dismissed, allowing Cortright to amend her petition. The district court sustained the City's motion to dismiss the amended petition. Cortright appealed and this Court granted her motion to retain. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Larry D. Patton, Oklahoma City, for Appellant. Amy Gray Douglas, Oklahoma City, for Appellee. ALMA WILSON, J: ¶1 The dispositive question is whether dismissal is premature where the parties dispute the beginning date of the 180-day limitation period specified in 51 O.S.Supp.1995, §157(B) for commencement of a governmental tort claims action. We answer in the affirmative. ¶2 The following facts are not disputed. On April 22, 1995, sewage backed-up into the residence of Cynthia S. Cortright, appellant. On September 18, 1995, Cortright timely ¶3 On June 27, 1996, Cortright filed her governmental tort claims action against the City to recover $18,556.11 in actual damages, plus costs and attorney fees. ¶4 In addition to the negligence allegations, Cortright's amended petition alleges the circumstances of the agreed-to extension of the date of denial of the claim and Cortright's good faith reliance thereon to her detriment. [951 P.2d 96] ¶5 The time limitations on Cortright's governmental tort claim are set forth in 51 O.S.Supp.1995, §157. ¶6 The City contends that because the claim had not been approved in its entirety within ninety days of the notice and no duly authorized agent of the City executed a written agreement to extend the date of denial, Cortright's claim was deemed denied on December 17, 1995, by operation of law. The City further contends that a strict application of §157 does not permit the City to agree to an extension of the denial date by its silence. ¶7 The words of §157(A) - agreed to in writing by the claimant and the state or political subdivision - do not strictly require a formal written agreement signed by the parties or their duly authorized agents parties, ¶8 Under extant jurisprudence, evidence of the acts of the parties as a whole will be considered to determine the existence of an agreement and a writing signed by only one party can be binding if there was a meeting of the minds on essential elements on unequivocal terms and one party acted thereon in good faith. ¶9 Cortright's attorney's letter memorializing his understanding that the City would not consider the claim denied by operation of law, together with an inference of the City's acceptance of the letter arising from the docketing of Cortright's claim for consideration by the City Council after the initial 90-day time period had run and the City's failure to repudiate the agreement REVERSED AND REMANDED. SUMMERS, V.C.J., HODGES, OPALA, WILSON, and WATT, JJ., concur. KAUGER, C.J., concurs in part and dissents in part. LAVENDER, SIMMS, and HARGRAVE, JJ., dissent. FOOT