Court Opinion

ID: 9789860
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:43:04.357101+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:24.756909
License: Public Domain

SUMMERS, Vice Chief Justice.
Two banks are litigating which of them should bear the loss for a check drawn on a closed account. The merits of that dispute are not before us at this time. Our review today is limited to Bank IV’s motion to dismiss Southwestern Bank’s appeal.1 By unpublished order we previously granted the motion. We now grant rehearing, vacate the order of dismissal, and deny Bank IV’s motion to dismiss. We conclude that the appeal was timely filed, and allow it to proceed.
The posture of the case is that a motion for summary judgment was sustained for Plaintiff, Bank IV, in the amount of $86,839.75, on December 29, 1995. The trial judge’s order was handwritten on a court minute form and filed that date. However, the judge crossed out the word “minute” and wrote in the word “order”.
Defendant/Appellant learned of the court’s action by telephone, and later received a copy. We need not recite the other circumstances surrounding the December 29 filing, because if that order is the appealable one, even under Appellant’s version and theory, its petition in error is one day out of time. The journal entry of judgment was filed January 12, 1996, which means that if it is the appealable order here, Appellant’s petition in error of February 2 is in plenty of time.
Southwestern Bank filed its petition in error on February 2, 1996, and an amended petition in error on February 14, 1996.2 Bank IV argues Southwestern Bank’s petition in error filed February 2 was untimely for reason that it was filed more than 30 days after December 29, 1995. We conclude that Southwestern Bank’s appeal is timely because of 12 O.S.1993 Supp. § 696.2, our recent opinion McMillian v. Holcomb, 907 P.2d 1034 (Okla.1995), and Rule 12 of the Rules for the District Courts of the Seventh Judicial District.3
Section 696.2 says in pertinent part:
“The following shall not constitute a judgment, decree, or appealable order: .... informal statement of the proceedings and relief awarded, including, but not limited to ... instructions for preparing the judgment, decree, or appealable order”
We recently held that “an order directing the prevailing party to prepare a journal entry or judgment of the court’s decision makes that order containing the direction a non-appealable event.” McMillian, 907 P.2d at 1036. Appellant Southwestern Bank argues on rehearing that Bank IV was required by local court rule to prepare a journal entry of judgment, and that this rule has the same effect as if it were specifically stated in the order of December 29th. We agree.
Rule 12 of the Seventh Judicial District in effect at the time of the December 29th order states in part:
When a motion is ruled on, counsel for the prevailing party shall within ten (10) days thereafter prepare a journal entry of the ruling and present it to counsel for the adverse parties, and if it be approved by all the attorneys, it shall be presented to the court for signature. If counsel are unable to agree upon the form of journal *326entry, the prevailing party shall give notice of presentation and present the matter for settlement of journal entry at the next motion day of the division in which said matter was heard, or such other time as the assigned judge shall direct, (emphasis added)
This local rule clearly requires counsel for the prevailing party, in this case Bank IV, to prepare the journal entry and present it to opposing counsel, in this case Southwestern’s.
District Courts may impose a local rule that has the force and effect of law when it does not conflict with statute, the Oklahoma Constitution or U.S. Constitution. Texas Oklahoma Express v. Sorenson, 652 P.2d 285, 287 (Okla.1982); Oklahoma County Sheriff v. Hunter, 615 P.2d 1007, 1008 (Okla.1980). See Petuskey v. Freeman, 890 P.2d 948, 950 (Okla.1995), where we discussed the statutory authority of a presiding judge, and 20 O.S.1991 Ch. 1, App. 2, Rule 8, providing that a chief judge of a district court has the power to adopt rules consistent with those adopted by the Supreme Court and the presiding judge.
Local rule 12 also states that: “Compliance with Rule 4 of The Rules for District Courts adopted by Supreme Court shall be mandatory.” Rule 4 of the Rules for District Courts states in part that: “The ruling of the court on a motion shall be memorialized by an order prepared by the moving party, or as directed by the court, and shall be filed in the case.” 12 O.S.Supp.1993 Ch. 2, App.Rule 4 at (f). Local Rule 12 is consistent with the Rules for the District Courts. Appellee, Bank IV, does not challenge the effectiveness of Rule 12, and we conclude that it has the force and effect of law.4
One obvious purpose of certain local rules is to require conduct in the case by the parties without the necessity of the trial judge making a formal order to that effect. A judge in the Seventh Judicial District need not specifically state in a ruling on a motion that the prevailing party prepare the journal entry. The prevailing party is already required by local rule to prepare such an entry, and an order to that effect in such a ruling would be surplusage. Had the trial judge not wanted the prevailing party to prepare a journal entry, or wanted its order of December 29th to serve as the journal entry, the judge’s order could have stated such.
We conclude that (1) when an order on a motion is silent as to the prevailing party’s duty to prepare a journal entry, and (2) a local rule requires the prevailing party to prepare, circulate, and present a proposed journal entry within a specified time of the court’s order, then the court’s order has the same effect, for the purpose of time to file a petition in error, as an order of the court directing the prevailing party to prepare a journal entry. An order directing the preparation of a journal entry is not appealable, and because of this the order of December 29,1995 was not the appealable event. Rather, the date on which the subsequent journal entry was filed began the countdown for appeal. McMillian v. Holcomb, 907 P.2d at 1036.
Southwestern Bank’s petition in error was filed within thirty days of the date the journal entry was filed in the District Court. The appeal is timely. 12 O.S.Supp.1994 § 990A(A). Bank IVs motion to dismiss is denied with prejudice to its renewal. Southwestern Bank’s motion for oral argument and motion for clarification are denied. The appeal shall proceed.
HODGES, LAVENDER, HARGRAVE and WATT, JJ., concur.
WILSON, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.
KAUGER, C.J., and SIMMS and OPALA, JJ., dissent.

.The style of this appeal has been corrected sua sponte to conform to statute, the rules of this Court, and our prior opinions. See the explanations at Vickers v. Boyd, 836 P.2d 1269, 1270 n. 1 (Okla.1992) and MBA Commercial Const. v. Roy J. Hannaford, 818 P.2d 469, 471 n. 2 (Okla.1991). See also Meadows v. Pittsburg Bd. of County Commissioners, 898 P.2d 741 n. 1 (Okla.1995); Seitsinger v. Dockum Pontiac Inc., 894 P.2d 1077, 1079 n. 2 (Okla.1995); Keel v. Wright, 890 P.2d 1351, 1352 n. 1 (Okla.1995).

. Bank IV filed a counter-petition in error on February 28, 1996 and an amended counter-petition in error on April 4, 1996. Bank IV challenges therein the District Court's denial of Bank IV's motion for attorney's fees and sanctions. The journal entry of the trial court's order on attorney’s fees was filed on February 20, 1996. Bank IV's appeal remains a part of Southwestern Bank's appeal for subsequent appellate disposition on the merits of both at a later date.

. Rule 12 is found in Oklahoma Court Rules and Procedure; State (West 1996).

. The power to adjudicate controversies includes a power to make and enforce reasonable rules of procedure before the court. Puckett v. Cook, 586 P.2d 721, 723 (Okla.1978). This Court has recognized as effective local court rules that do not conflict with rules of general application promulgated by this Court, or statutes, or the Federal or State Constitutions. See Texas Oklahoma Express v. Sorenson, supra, Oklahoma County Sheriff v. Hunter, supra. The dissenting opinion would appear to invalidate under Art. 5 sec. 46 any local rule that provides for a procedure different than used in the rest of the State. Our treatment of the local rule in question is perfectly consistent with 12 O.S. § 696.2, and McMillian, supra.