Court Opinion

ID: 9688321
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 17:43:29.050925+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:37.504885
License: Public Domain

AMUNDSON, Justice
(dissenting).
In this case, the motion for new trial was filed, argued and orally decided by the trial court within the twenty-day period required by SDCL 15-6-59(b). At the August 12, 1990, motion hearing, the trial court took action on the motion by denying it. All that remained to be done was the preparation of an order, in accordance with the trial court’s decision with submission of same to the trial court for execution by the prevailing party, to-wit: plaintiff in this action.
This order was prepared (the record on the order to show cause does not denote exactly when this was done) with the record showing it as signed and filed by the trial court on August 28, 1990. On August 29, 1990, plaintiff served a copy of the order denying new trial on the defendants as evidenced by the certificate of service on file, which was obviously after plaintiff had submitted the proposed order to the court for its execution.
In the case of Flippin v. Turlock, 24 Wis.2d 49, 127 N.W.2d 822 (1964), the court was presented with facts where the motion for new trial was filed within the statutory time frame and orally decided by the trial court at time of oral argument. The formal decision on the new trial motion was not filed until eight months and two weeks after the verdict. The statute in Wisconsin provided that the motion was to be made and heard within sixty days of the verdict. Since the motion had been heard, and actually decided within the sixty days provided for in the statute, the court held there had been substantial compliance with the statute notwithstanding the later filing of the formal decision.
In this case, the motion was timely filed and decided by the trial court. All that remained was for the prevailing party (plaintiff) to prepare the necessary order denying the motion, which is the normal procedure employed by trial courts. This obviously was not done forthwith in view of the date the order was filed and served.
With these facts in mind and seeing no lengthy delay in the administration of justice as a problem in this case, I would allow these appeals to go forward. The record adequately shows substantial compliance with the statute, if not a de facto extension of time by the trial court for entry of the order.