Court Opinion

ID: 9573303
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:52:01.650384+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:40:12.028549
License: Public Domain

JOHN LADNER, Special Chief Judge
(concurring specially).
I concur in the result of the majority opinion in general and also in the result reached that this court has jurisdiction of this appeal, but I respectfully cannot concur in the following conclusion of fact and law in the majority opinion as a basis of jurisdiction of this appeal:
“All agree that if the Order of July 13, 1962 is to be interpreted as we have done” (to constitute, with the combined Journal Entry signed the same day, a new judgment as of that date), “the appeal was lodged within the time allowed by law * * * [and] this court has jurisdiction.”
I believe this is an unwarranted conclusion of fact and law, especially since no one attempted to appeal from any order or judgment of July 13, 1962. However, in view of the confused records in these cases and in the interest of brevity and since there is another and a sound ground upon which to rest the jurisdiction of this appeal, I will not specify any further errors about this jurisdictional conclusion of the majority.
The appeal of Betty Jeanne Alexander, No. 40384 herein, was on motion of said appellant by order of this court dismissed on January 6, 1965, so we are only concerned with the appeal of The General *404Creditors, No. 40272 herein. The other ground to sustain the jurisdiction of this remaining appeal by The General Creditors arose and is as follows.
On December 5,1961, the executor of said estate filed in the county court a combined “Petition to Approve Final Account, Determine Heirship and Order Distribution of Assets of Estate”. On January 2, 1962 The General Creditors filed “Application for Payment of Claims” alleging “that the executor has filed his Final Account herein and is attempting to close the administration proceedings without payment of the claims of The General Creditors”, and prayed “that the executor be required to pay from the funds in his hands their claims”. The district court on appeal and trial de novo on said papers or pleadings on June 8, 1962 rendered judgment allowing the claims of The General Creditors but refused to direct payment of the same on the ground that there were no unrestricted funds available to pay such general claims.
The General Creditors filed a Motion for New Trial which was on June 27, 1962 overruled; “to which” they excepted and gave notice of appeal, were given extension of time to make, serve and settle case-made. However, on July 6, 1962 they filed notice of appeal “on the original record” under 12 O.S.(1961) 956.1, et seq., “from the order, decree and judgment rendered herein against them on the 27th day of June, 1962”. Said appeal was filed in this court on September 21, 1962.
The determining issue is: Was The General Creditors’ motion for new trial necessary to review the order or judgment of the District Court entered June 8, 1962, which denied their “Application for Payment of Claims” and which application was also filed in response and as objection to executor’s final account and petition to determine heirs and distribution of assets. If such motion was necessary, then their appeal from the order of June 27, 1962 overruling it was filed within the required 90 days from said date; but if such motion was not necessary, then their appeal from the order or judgment of June 8, 1962, was not filed within such required time.
The contention of General Creditors is: Where there are contested questions of fact decided by the trial court, a motion for new trial is necessary to appeal regardless of the nature of the matters heard. In support of this they cite a number of Oklahoma cases. This rule is correct if applied to a civil action or other proceeding when issues of fact arise on pleadings and result in a trial and judgment. The cases cited by appellants are all such cases. The rule is otherwise if issues of fact arise on a motion resulting in a hearing and order. This distinction has been based largely upon the definitions, contained in our Code of Civil Procedure, of: pleadings — trial—issues— new trial — judgment—motion—order, as defined in 12 O.S.(1961) 263, 551, 552, 554, 651, 681, 1110, 1116. There are two types of cases where this court has applied this latter rule, and has held in various matters that where controverted facts arose upon a motion resulting in a hearing and order (not upon pleadings, trial and judgment), a motion for new trial was not necessary and did not extend the time of appeal.
The first type of such cases generally involved various matters incidental or supplemental to a regalar civil action or special proceeding, such as the following: Powell v. Nichols, 26 Okl. 734, 110 P. 762, 29 L.R.A., N.S., 886 (First Oklahoma case. Motion and order as to validity of execution issued on judgment.) Ginn v. Knight, 106 Okl. 4, 232 P. 936; (motion and order as to cancellation of credit on judgment.) Grimes v. Ward, 179 Okl. 5, 64 P.2d 894. (Objection and order on confirmation of execution sale.) Fliedner v. Hinchee, 157 Okl. 90, 11 P.2d 110. (Motion and order as to vacating judgment.) Wilkinson v. Thomas, 175 Okl. 351, 52 P.2d 726. (Motion and order as to distribution of funds held by Bank Commissioner in court liquidation action.) Liese v. Hadden, 191 Okl. 666,132 P.2d 654. (Objections and order on commissioner’s report in partition action.) Taylor v. Taylor (Okl.), 387 P.2d 648. (Motion and order *405modifying divorce decree as to child custody) wherein the court “observed * * * that this appeal was taken prior to the effective date of 12 O.S.1961 § 651, as amended in 1963.” This 1963 amendment applies only “in cases where judgment was rendered after” the opinion in Poafpybitty v. Skelly Oil Co. (July 7, 1964) (Okl.), 394 P.2d 515, became final; hence does not apply in this appeal, although it would apply to all judgments and orders rendered after said date. Stokes v. State (Okl.), 410 P.2d 59.
The second type of such cases generally involved various matters incidental or supplemental to a probate case, such as the following: In re Baptiste’s Guardianship, 125 Okl. 184, 256 P. 520 (application for attorney fees), held:
“Having determined the action arose on a motion after a hearing thereon resulted in an order of the court, the question of the necessity for a motion for new trial has been settled by this court by an unbroken line of decisions from Powell v. Nichols et al., 26 Okl. 734, 110 P. 762, 29 L.R.A.(N.S.) 886, to the present time.”
French v. Boles, 128 Okl. 90, 261 P. 196 (same kind of application and order as Baptiste case); In re Butler’s Guardianship, 130 Okl. 241, 266 P. 1106 (guardian’s annual account, order approving it and to reinstate guardian). The court said and held:
“The Code of Probate Procedure in this state is largely taken from the Probate Code of California, in which state it has been held that it is the duty of the court to carefully examine the accounts of guardian, regardless of objections, to scrutinize the account, correct all errors, reject all items of credit which appear illegal or excessive, and generally to inquire into the truthfulness and accuracy of the items of charges and- credits and of the facts alleged in the report. In re Boyes’ Estates, 151 Cal. 143, 90 P. 454.
“The filing of exceptions and objections thereto is but an aid to the court. In In re Franklin’s Estate, 133 Cal. 584, 65 P. 1081, it is held no issue is formed by objections to an annual account of executor; that a motion for new trial does not extend the time in which to file appeal from an order settling the same. * * *
“From the foregoing statutes and citations we determine that the account filed by the guardian herein is not a pleading but is an exhibit and that the examination thereof by the court is not a trial, and that the action of the court therein appealed from herein is an order allowing such account, and that the motion for new trial, bringing the error complained of before the trial court for review, was unnecessary, and the filing of such unnecessary motion for new trial did not extend the time in which to file the appeal in this court.”
In re Williamson’s Estate, 188 Okl. 157, 107 P.2d 192 (executor’s final account), after citing some of above cases, held:
“The appeal must be dismissed under the above authorities. Plaintiffs in error urge that these cases are not authority for the rule in a proceeding on the final account. We do not find that this court has made any distinction as to the nature of the account, but simply lays down the rule that the proceeding on appeal from the account is not a trial and does not require any motion for new trial.”
Wimbish v. Dixon, 193 Okl. 550, 143 P.2d 616 (guardian’s “final report” and guardian’s and attorney’s fees), followed the Williamson case. This court had not had occasion to consider any case involving a final account prior to the Williamson case; and neither that nor the Wimbish case considered the possible distinction between an annual and final account nor considered the statutes and cases hereafter cited.
.Appellee, J. C. Cornett, executor, in his brief relies upon the rule announced and applied in the above cases, especially the probate cases. It will be noted, however, *406that all of the above probate cases involved annual or final fiduciary accounts or applications for fiduciary fees or attorney fees, which were rather incidental to the main case. This court has never passed upon the necessity of a motion for new trial to review, on appeal from the district court to the supreme court, an order or judgment arising on objections to a petition for final distribution or on an application for payment of claims, such as are involved in this appeal. In re Fullerton’s Estate (Okl.), 375 P.2d 933, recognizes this fact.
It is important that in the leading Oklahoma probate case involving an annual account (In re Rutler’s Guardianship, supra.) cited by appellee, the court said: “The Code of Probate Procedure, in this state is largely taken from the Probate Code in California”, and based its decision primarily on In re Franklin’s Estate, 133 Cal. 581, 65 P. 1081,, which also involved an animal account. However, the California Supreme Court therein held and said:
“[A] motion for a new trial does not apply to a probate order settling the annual account of an executrix. * * *
“In the Bauquier Case the only question involved was whether a motion for a new trial was proper in a proceeding inaugurated by the written petition of appellant therein for the probate of a certain will, and her appointment as executrix thereunder, and written opposition to her appointment on the ground of incompetency ; and it was held that, as the action of the court was invoked as to matters of fact which were ‘presented to it for determination in the form of pleadings’ a motion for a new trial was the proper proceeding.” * * *
And in Carter v. Waste, 159 Cal. 23, 112 P. 727, the same court, after referring to their statutes which made the provisions relating to new trial in civil actions applicable to all probate proceedings “except in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of.this title”, held:
“Thus it is held that a motion for a new trial will not lie where the court has made an order granting or refusing a family allowance, or setting apart or refusing to set apart property as exempt, or as a homestead. Leach v. Pierce, 93 Cal. 614, 29 Pac. 235; Shipman v. Unangst, 150 Cal. 425, 88 Pac. 1090; Estate of Heywood, 154 Cal. 312, 97 Pac. 825. The same ruling has been made as to an order settling the annual account of an executor or administrator. (Estate of Franklin, 133 Cal. 584, 65 Pac. 1081). * * * It has been assumed without question that a motion will lie in proceedings for partial distribution (Estate of Ryer, 110 Cal. 556, 42 Pac. 1082) and in proceedings on final distribution (Estate of Walker, 148 Cal. 162, 82 Pac. 770), and it has been so held as to the latter proceeding by the Supreme Court of Montana, upon statutes practically identical with ours.
“We are satisfied that it must be taken as established in this state that, under our law as it now exists, a motion for a new trial of any issue of fact actually made and determined in any proceeding in probate will lie when the law expressly authorizes issues of fact to be framed in such proceeding, and that provisions authorizing written objections on the part of persons interested in the estate and providing for the hearing and determination of those objections do expressly authorize issues of fact to be framed.”
In re Stinger’s Estate, 61 Mont. 173, 201 P. 693, involving facts similar to those in the present appeal, made the same distinction and reached the same conclusion as the California cases supra. The court said:
“The clear meaning of the probate statutes is that, when formal pleadings are filed presenting issues of fact, the parties *407should proceed to a formal trial, and, upon the determination of the issues of fact by the court, the aggrieved party may move for a new trial the same as in other cases.”
Our statute (12 O.S.(1961) § 984) in effect is the same, with respect to motions for new trial, as the California and Montana statutes referred to in the above cases.
In re Michaux’s Estate, 171 Kan. 417, 233 P.2d 510, the court said and held:
“Generally speaking it can be said there can be no question in this jurisdiction that trial errors such as are here involved are not subject to appellate review in the absence of a motion for a new trial in the court below. * * * Appellant argues the rule is limited to actions commenced in the district court and has no application to a probate proceeding which is appealed to the district court and thereafter determined by that tribunal. The fallacy of this argument appears in the probate code itself. See G.S.1949, 59-2408, which provides that the district court shall proceed to hear and determine an appeal from probate court de novo and in doing so shall have and exercise the same general jurisdiction and power as though the controversy had been commenced by action or proceeding in such court and as though it had original jurisdiction. We are therefore constrained to hold that upon appeal to the district court from an order from a decision of the probate court refusing to set aside an order of final settlement and distribution the cause is tried in conformity with the rules of civil procedure and that parties desiring to appeal from the judgment rendered therein must file and obtain a ruling on a motion for a new trial before this court can review trial errors such as are here involved.”
This case is of special significance because our civil procedure statutes, including those relating to new trials and appeals, were largefy- adopted from Kansas. Also the pertinent part of the Kansas probate statute, as to trials de novo in their district courts, is practically identical with ours. 58 O.S.(1961) § 735.
In In re Miller’s Estate, 182 Okl. 534, 78 P.2d 819, this court said:
“Said section” (58 O.S.(1961) 735) “is a part of the chapter on general probate procedure and applies to appeals on all matters arising on final distribution, which includes the determination of heirs of the estate of an intestate”, and assumed the motion for new trial filed therein was necessary but was defective because “the motion for new trial did not mention the omission” (of specific findings) “and seek a new trial by reason thereof. The assignment will therefore receive no further consideration.”
In view of all of the foregoing, I conclude that a motion for new trial is necessary to appeal from the district to supreme court in any probate proceeding if the law requires or authorizes contested issues of fact to be joined, and they were joined, upon formal or informal pleadings resulting in a trial and judgment (rather than upon a motion, hearing and order) ; especially if the matter involved constitutes a basic or primary proceeding in such probate case, rather than being merely incidental or supplemental thereto.
The contested issues of fact in the instant case were joined, tried and adjudged upon informal, if not formal, pleadings, namely, the final account and petition for final distribution, the General Creditors’ application for payment of their allowed claims, which application was also filed in response and as objections to said petition. And courts “consider the substance of a pleading rather than the title” thereof to determine its nature and effect. White v. Mitchell, 206 Okl. 151, 241 P.2d 407. Such pleadings were required or authorized under our law. 58 O.S.(1961) §§ 553, 554, 555, 631. These sections must be construed together. Crawford v. LeFevre, 177 Okl. *408508, 61 P.2d 196. Of course the pleadings in probate cases in the county and district courts were never intended to be as formal as in ordinary civil actions. But:
“All issues of fact joined in the county court must be tried by said court” * * and “If the issues are not sufficiently made up by the written pleadings on file, the court, on due notice to the opposite party, must ^settle and frame the issues to be tried, and upon which the court may render judgment.” (58 O.S.(1961) § 709).
It follows that The General Creditors’ motion for new trial was authorized and necessary for their appeal, and since it was overruled June 27, 1962, and their appeal filed herein September 21, 1962, it was filed within 90 days as required by 12 O.S. (1961) § 956.2, and this court has jurisdiction of said appeal.