Opinion ID: 1286830
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Landman

Text: Landman argues that summary judgment was proper because although Hettel's original petition sought to cancel and rescind the bonds and all related contract documents, after this Court's order on December 4, 1990, he abandoned his claim for rescission. Hettel has neither asserted any subsequent claim for damages nor any other relief against Landman, and the pretrial conference order does not reflect that damages have been asserted against Landman. Hettel also alleges that the trial court erred when it granted summary judgment in favor of Landman because he was not required to amend his pleadings in order to recover damages from Landman in pursuit of its qui tam claim. [20] In Hettel's third amended petition, he specifically abandoned any claims for contract recision. [21] However, in his response for summary judgment Hettel asserts that, although he no longer seeks contract rescission, the evidentiary material shows that Landman had knowledge of all the alleged illegal, unconstitutional, and fraudulent acts and that it received benefit from them. [22] Recently, in Liberty Bank & Trust Co., v. Bachrach, 916 P.2d 1377 (Okla.1996), [23] we found that an answer, which failed to include the affirmative defense of failure to give timely notice of dishonor, should be amended when the parties' had already litigated the issue. [24] We relied on United States ex rel. Schumer v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 63 F.3d 1512, 1524 (9th Cir.1995), which involved a plaintiff who had failed to raise certain claims in the complaint but who had raised the claims in the response to a motion for summary judgment, and said: `[W]e consider them because when a party raises a claim in material filed in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, the district court should treat the filing as a request to amend the pleading. . . .' The rules of pleading both at trial and at appellate levels have been liberalized to allow the court to focus its attention on the substantive merits of a dispute rather than upon procedural niceties. [25] The legal effect of any court-filed paper, including a motion or pleading, is measured by its content rather than by the author provided title. [26] Here, Hettel, in his response to Landman's motion for summary judgment asserted his qui tam claim against Landman. [27] The trial court should have treated this portion of Hettel's response for summary judgment as a request to amend the pleadings. [28] Accordingly, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Landman.