Opinion ID: 2612450
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: misrepresentations to the oklahoma corporation commission

Text: Although the plaintiffs have alleged causes of action of which the district court has subject matter jurisdiction in their contract claim and their violation of fiduciary duty claim, the third cause of action, entitled Plaintiffs' Third Claim in Tort is not properly brought before the district court. Appellants alleged in this third claim that the appellees breached a duty to fully and fairly present the facts to the Corporation Commission to prevent it ... from relying on false or baseless contentions or testimony. In essence, the appellants are asking for damages because the appellee made misrepresentations to the commission during the hearing on the plaintiffs' application to have the allowable on the Wosika well reduced. This misrepresentation was characterized by the trial court as intrinsic fraud, and the court relied on the definition of intrinsic fraud this Court announced in Chapman v. Chapman, Okl., 692 P.2d 1369 (1984). In Chapman, this Court stated that intrinsic fraud is: any fraudulent conduct of the successful party which was practiced during the course of an actual adversary trial of the issues joined and which had no effect directly and affirmatively to mislead the defeated party to his injury after he announced ready to proceed with trial. If during the trail the successful party urges forged instruments or perjured testimony or fails to introduce witnesses of whom he has knowledge and whose testimony would help his adversary and impair his own case, he is guilty of fraud; but it is intrinsic fraud, for relief from which application must be made to the court having jurisdiction of the issues joined and tried. [11] Relief from intrinsic fraud must be made by direct attack in the same case in which the fraud was committed. Since the Oklahoma Corporation Commission has the power and authority of a court of record in this state, [12] it naturally follows that if intrinsic fraud occurred during an adversarial trial before the commission, then under our holding in Chapman, the proper forum to hear allegations of the intrinsic fraud and rule upon them is the commission. [13] We find that the allegations of misrepresentations as averred in the petition are allegations of intrinsic fraud because they refer to false information given by the appellee at the adversarial hearing before the commission on plaintiffs' application for a reduction in the allowable of the Wosika well. Consequently, subject matter jurisdiction does not lie in the district court for a cause of action on these alleged misrepresentations. CERTIFIED QUESTIONS ANSWERED.