Opinion ID: 1196237
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: there is competent record evidence to support the trial court's judgment

Text: ¶ 6 The Small Claims Procedure Act provides that actions brought under its terms are to be tried to the court when the amount in controversy is less that $1500. [3] In the non-jury trial mandated by this provision the district court [4] judge sits as a trier of fact. In a non-jury trial the court's findings are entitled to the same weight and consideration that would be given to a jury's verdict. [5] The trial court's findings will not be disturbed for insufficient evidence if there is any competent evidenceincluding reasonable inferences deraigned by the sameto support them. [6] Finally, the Court in its review of a trial court's denial of a motion for new trial is mindful that a trial court is vested with broad discretion in granting or denying such a request. Without evidence that the trial court erred in its resolution of a question of law or acted arbitrarily, the Court will not disturb a judgment on appeal. [7] ¶ 7 The primary issue below was how to characterize the salary provisions of the employment contract which existed between employer and Soldan. Two plausible theories were presented at trial. Employee contended that once the store which he managed earned a threshold sum of $7500 dollars in gross profits during a month he was guaranteed $2000 in base pay. Employer counters that Soldan was always paid $2000 per month as base salary and simply received commissions on those amounts of gross profits in excess of $7500. Employer's logic was that since Soldan left employment in the middle of a month, he was not entitled to compensation for the last of that period. The agreement [a copy of which appears at page 34 of the record] is sparse. Its terms are consistent with the employer's theory but neither refute nor are irreconcilably inconsistent with employee's understanding of how he earned his base salary. Also, there is nothing in the record to refute that the store (which Soldan managed) earned the required $7500 in gross profits during the first two weeks of February. The fact that employee was paid on the 5th and 20th of a month is notas employer would have the Court believeprobative of how the base salary was earned but rather of how it was paid. ¶ 8 The record reflects competent evidence which supports the trial court's judgment in this matter. Although the trial judge's view of the evidence was contra to the legal theory advanced by employer, there is nothing in the record to demonstrate that in doing so he abused his discretion or resolved the legal issues before him in a manner inconsistent with Oklahoma's extant jurisprudence. ¶ 9 For the foregoing reasons, THE DISTRICT COURT'S JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED.