In the Matter of Estate of Heimbach

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

In the Matter of Estate of Heimbach

1992 OK 16, 827 P.2d 170, 63 O.B.A.J. 604, 1992 Okla. LEXIS 30, 1992 WL 32837

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedFebruary 10, 1992

Docket78750

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 1992 OK 16 (In the Matter of Estate of Heimbach) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In the Matter of Estate of Heimbach, 1992 OK 16, 827 P.2d 170, 63 O.B.A.J. 604, 1992 Okla. LEXIS 30, 1992 WL 32837 (Okla. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Appellees’ motion to dismiss is denied with prejudice to its reargument. 12 O.S.1991 Supp. § 653 provides that a motion for new trial must be filed within ten days after the decision is rendered. Appellant’s motion to modify, which was filed within ten days after the filing of the judgment, but more than ten days after its pronouncement, is not a timely post-judgment motion that would extend the appeal time until after the disposition of the motion. Appellees’ motion to dismiss is nonetheless denied. This court will permit review of the underlying judgment. This is so because the changes in appellate procedure effected by the recent legislative enactments do present a veritable trap for the unwary, especially where, as here, there is no published case law on point. Poafpybitty v. Skelly Oil Company, 394 P.2d 515 (Okl.1964), Isbell v. State of Oklahoma, 603 P.2d 758, 760-61 (Okl.1979).

Today’s ruling, insofar as it requires that new trial motions be filed within ten days of the pronouncement of a judgment or final order, shall operate prospectively and apply to all final orders or judgments pronounced after the effective date of this order. The effective date of this order will coincide with expiration of *171 time allowed for rehearing, or, if rehearing be filed, the date of its disposition.

OPALA, C.J., and LAVENDER, DOOLIN, ALMA WILSON and KAUGER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

Appellees’ motion to dismiss is denied with prejudice to its reargument. 12 O.S.1991 Supp. § 653 provides that a motion for new trial must be filed within ten days after the decision is rendered. Appellant’s motion to modify, which was filed within ten days after the filing of the judgment, but more than ten days after its pronouncement, is not a timely post-judgment motion that would extend the appeal time until after the disposition of the motion. Appellees’ motion to dismiss is nonetheless denied. This court will permit review of the underlying judgment. This is so because the changes in appellate procedure effected by the recent legislative enactments do present a veritable trap for the unwary, especially where, as here, there is no published case law on point. Poafpybitty v. Skelly Oil Company, 394 P.2d 515 (Okl.1964), Isbell v. State of Oklahoma, 603 P.2d 758, 760-61 (Okl.1979).

Today’s ruling, insofar as it requires that new trial motions be filed within ten days of the pronouncement of a judgment or final order, shall operate prospectively and apply to all final orders or judgments pronounced after the effective date of this order. The effective date of this order will coincide with expiration of *171 time allowed for rehearing, or, if rehearing be filed, the date of its disposition.

OPALA, C.J., and LAVENDER, DOOLIN, ALMA WILSON and KAUGER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1992 OK 16, 827 P.2d 170, 63 O.B.A.J. 604, 1992 Okla. LEXIS 30, 1992 WL 32837, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-matter-of-estate-of-heimbach-okla-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack