Opinion ID: 2514737
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Appellate Review of District Court Orders

Text: ¶7 Title 12, section 993 provides that an appeal from an order certifying or refusing to certify an action to be maintained as a class action may be appealed without a final determination in the cause being entered. Thus, the district court's order certifying this action to be maintained as a class action is properly before this Court. ¶8 The order ruling on the House's motion for summary judgment states: Accordingly, the Court finds the following as a matter of law: (1) Mr. House received and paid a traffic fine in excess of $50.00; (2) At the time the plaintiff received and paid the ticket, Dickson had not published its ordinances as required by Oklahoma statutes. The plaintiff's Motion for Summary judgment is therefore sustained to that limited extent. This order leaves the issues of entitlement to and the amount of damages unresolved and questions of fact unanswered. The order also leaves Dickson's counter-motion for summary judgment pending. Thus, it is a partial summary adjudication or, in lawyer's parlance, a partial summary judgment. Reams v. Tulsa Cable Television, Inc., 1979 OK 171, ¶ 3, 604 P.2d 373, 374. ¶9 A partial summary adjudication is not a judgment under title 12, section 681 of the Oklahoma Statutes nor is it a final order under title 12, section 953. Reams, 1979 OK 171 at ¶ 3, 604 P.2d at 374. A partial summary adjudication is not appealable unless it is an interlocutory order (1) appealable by right under title 12, sections 952(b)(2) or 993 or other statutory provision or (2) certified for immediate appeal under title 12, section 952(b)(3), or (3) it is prepared as a final judgment, order, or decree at the direction of the court with a finding that there is no just reason for delay and disposes of some of the claims pursuant to title 12, section 994. Id. The district court's partial summary adjudication before us is not appealable by right nor does it contain the necessary language for review as required by title 12, sections 952(b)(3) or 994. ¶10 Even if the district court's partial summary adjudication had disposed of all the issues, it would have been improperly rendered as material facts remained in dispute. Summary judgment is proper only when there is no substantial controversy as to any material fact . . . . 12 O.S.2001, ch. 2, app., rule 13(e). In this case, material facts necessary to support a summary judgment are not part of the record. ¶11 There remain factual questions which would show whether or not House's claims are an impermissible collateral attack on a judgment of the Dickson municipal court. [5] A judgment or final order of a court is not subject to collateral attack unless the judgment is void. Stork v. Stork, 1995 OK 61, ¶ 12, 898 P.2d 732, 738. A judgment will be deemed void only when the face of the record reveals that one of three jurisdictional elements is missing: jurisdiction over the parties, jurisdiction over the subject matter, or power to pronounce the particular decision that was entered. Id. at n. 17. If extrinsic evidence is necessary to show the jurisdictional defect, the judgment or final order is not void. Id. ¶ 12, 898 P.2d at 738. Further, the legal existence of a de facto court acting under color of law is not subject to collateral attack. Morgan v. State, 66 OK CR 205, 90 P.2d 683 (1939); Cullins v. Overton, 1898 OK 43, ¶ 14, 54 P. 702, 706 (Indian Terr.). Whether the Dickson municipal court entered a final order or judgment regarding House's conviction and sentence is a material question of unanswered fact on which the resolution of the present case depends and prevents summary judgment.