Title: England v. Walters

State: oklahoma

Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Document:

ENGLAND v. WALTERS2011 OK 36Case Number: 106644Decided: 05/03/2011THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION IN 
THE PERMANENT LAW REPORTS. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR 
WITHDRAWAL. 

RAYMOND ENGLAND and EVA ENGLAND, 
Plaintiffs/Appellees,v.DOUGLAS D. WALTERS and CINDY M. WALTERS, 
Defendants/Appellants.
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, DIVISION III
¶0 The trial judge's term expired on Sunday, January 7, 2007, and the next 
day, before his successor was sworn in, the judge signed a journal entry. The 
appellants filed a motion to vacate and set aside the judgment asserting that 
the journal entry was irregular and/or void because the judge lacked legal 
authority after the expiration of his term of office. The successor judge denied 
the motion and ordered that the journal entry should stand without modification 
of the language contained in it. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed and 
remanded after determining the judgment was void. 
CERTIORARI GRANTED;OPINION OF THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS 
VACATED;JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED.
Clark S. Wood, Sallisaw, Oklahoma, for plaintiffs/appellees.William 
Orendorff and Matthew Orendorff, Sallisaw, Oklahoma, for 
defendants/appellants.
WINCHESTER, J.
¶1 The plaintiffs/appellees, Raymond England and Eva England, seek certiorari 
to review an opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals. That court reversed the 
trial court's refusal to vacate a judgment signed by a trial judge one day after 
his term had expired. The primary question before this Court is whether a 
judgment is valid if signed by the trial judge after his term expired but before 
his successor takes his oath of office. We hold that the judgment is valid.
¶2 In December of 2006 Judge Garrett conducted a bench trial regarding a land 
dispute, and took the matter under advisement so he could view the land. After 
he viewed the land, he told the appellees' counsel that he was ruling in their 
favor, and asked counsel to prepare a journal entry for his signature. He 
reviewed the proposed journal entry and signed it the day after his term was set 
to expire, but before his successor, Judge Payton, took his oath of office. 
¶3 The defendants/appellants, Douglas D. Walters and Cindy M. Walters, filed 
a motion to vacate the judgment, alleging it was void, which motion Judge Payton 
denied. The appellants filed a petition in error, the Court of Civil Appeals 
determined the judgment was void, and reversed and remanded the case. The 
appellees filed a petition for certiorari, which this Court granted.
¶4 Title 
¶5 In Coyle v. Smith, 
¶6 The Coyle Court cited Article 23, § 10 of the Constitution, which 
provides: "all officers within this state shall continue to perform the duties 
of their office until their successors shall be duly qualified", and § 41 of the 
Schedule of the Constitution, which provides: "All persons elected at the time 
of the adoption of this Constitution to any of the offices provided under the 
Constitution shall be deemed to have duly qualified upon their taking the oath 
of office before any officer authorized by law to administer oaths, and 
executing such bond as may be required by law". The Court concluded that the 
framers of the Constitution intended for the terms of the members of the Lower 
House and the short-term Senators of the First Legislature would be less than 
two years. The terms were to expire on the fifteenth day succeeding the day of 
the regular state election in 1908 and the terms of their successors should 
begin that day. Coyle, 
¶7 The application of these provisions of our Constitution as applied to the 
unique facts found in Coyle reveals why that Court held as it did on this 
issue. In Robertson v. Brewer, 

¶8 Regarding allegations of irregularities in communication between the 
attorney for the appellees and Judge Garrett, the appellants cite no record 
revealing irregularities took place. Their allegations seem to remain in the 
realm of speculation of what may have happened. The trial attorney did not 
represent the appellants during the appeal, and we have no record of testimony 
to support these speculations of what communications occurred with the attorneys 
for the parties during the time Judge Garrett made his decision and signed the 
journal entry. We will presume the decision of the judge was correctly reached. 
Reeves v. Agee, 

CERTIORARI GRANTED;OPINION OF THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS 
VACATED;JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED.
ALL JUSTICES CONCUR