Opinion ID: 2617521
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: an instrument's meaning or effect depends upon its content and substance rather than on its form or title [6]

Text: Judgments, [7] orders [8] and minutes [9] are facially distinguishable instruments. Recognizable by their content, appearance and substance, each of these writings has a distinct legal identity. [10] Record entry [11] of judgment may never be accomplished by a clerk's minute or by an unsigned, initialed or incomplete abstract of proceedings placed on a minute form later posted on the appearance docket. [12] Rather, it is accomplished by the filing of a memorial that meets the 12 O.S. 1991 § 24 [13] recordation criteria (the judge's full signature and a clear indication of the relief afforded). The filing of the recordable memorial begins the 12 O.S. 1991 § 990A [14] countdown for commencing an appeal. [15] The substance and content of the May 4 entry [16] give it all the requisite attributes of a summary judgment. It is not a minute. If the four corners of the May 4 instrument had yielded no more than an unsigned or initialed recitation of the events that transpired at trial, [17] my conclusion would be different. [18] The instrument in contest clearly gives summary judgment to the Bishops, formally determining the parties' rights in the action. By application of the § 681 [19] standards and of the applicable law then in force, the May 4 entry is the recordable [20] judgment in the case. Its text provides that the Bishops are given the relief they sought  i.e., summary judgment  and the direction is signed by the judge. In short, the May 4 entry is the filed judgment [21] which may not be transmuted into a minute by its pre-printed court minute label. [22] The later-enacted provisions of 12 O.S.Supp. 1993 §§ 696.2 [23] and 696.3 [24] , which today govern the contents and filing of judgments, were not in force when judgment was entered in this case. The cited sections do not hence govern this cause. [25]