Meadows v. Pittsburg County Board of County Commissioners

1995 OK 65, 898 P.2d 741, 66 O.B.A.J. 2112, 1995 Okla. LEXIS 84, 1995 WL 379945

• Court: Supreme Court of Oklahoma
• Decided: June 27, 1995
• Docket: 81771
• Status: Published

Opinions

SUMMERS, Justice.

This matter is before us prior to briefing on the merits for our determination as to whether the appeal was timely filed. The merits of the case on appeal are not before us. We conclude that the appeal was timely filed and that it shall proceed.¹

Plaintiffs petition states that this wrongful death action is brought pursuant to the Governmental Tort Claims Act of the State of Oklahoma. The defendant asserted a statutory immunity under the Tort Claims Act. The trial court agreed and the plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed by an unpublished opinion. On remand a jury trial was held, resulting in a plaintiffs verdict.

The verdict was handed to the Clerk and filed in the trial court on May 12, 1993. On May 13, 1993 a “court minute” was signed and filed, containing a summary of the trial and verdict. The petition in error was filed in this Court on Monday, June 14, 1993. A journal entry of judgment was signed and filed on January 4, 1994. An amended petition in error was filed in this Court on January 5, 1994. Given these facts we find the appeal timely for the following reasons.

The first issue presented is whether the time to commence the appeal started on the date the verdict was filed. Two prior opinions of this Court have equated a filed verdict and a filed judgment for the purpose of commencing appeal time. Rodgers v. Higgins, 871 P.2d 398 (Okla.1993); Jaco Production Company v. Luca, 823 P.2d 364 (Okla.1991). If the Jaco rule applies the June 14th petition in error was too late to appeal from the May 12th filing of the jury’s verdict.² However, we limited application of that rule to verdicts in common law actions. Jaco, supra at 364; McGinnis v. Republic-Underwriters Insurance Company, 830 P.2d 191 (Okla.1992).

An action pursuant to the Governmental Tort Claims Act is not a common law action. In Tate v. Browning-Ferris, Inc., 833 P.2d 1218, 1230 n. 66 (Okla.1992), we noted that 51 O.S.1981 § 153(B) states that the liability of the political subdivision under the Act is exclusive and in place of all other liability at common law or otherwise. See also Juvenal v. Okeene Public Schools, 878 P.2d 1026, 1030 (Okla.1994), (standard of liability pursuant to the Tort Claims Act applied although different than standard at common law); Fuller v. Odom, 741 P.2d 449, 453 (Okla.1987), (com-. mon law joint and several liability did not apply to Political Subdivision Tort Claim). The timeliness of this appeal is not controlled by Jaco.

The next issue is whether the judge-signed instrument entitled “Court Minute (Summary)” summarizing the trial and verdict, and filed May 13, 1993, commenced the time to appeal. This issue was discussed in Matter of Estate of Robinson, 885 P.2d 1334 (Okla.1994). Therein we explained the prospective effect of Manning v. State ex rel. Dept. of Public Safety, 876 P.2d 667 (Okla.1994) on “court minutes” filed prior to October 1, 1993. We stated that a court minute dated August 30,1993, although perhaps constituting a judgment, did not commence the time to file an appeal, and concluded that, time to commence an appeal began on the filing of a subsequent order conforming to 12 O.S.Supp.1993 § 696.3. Robinson, 885 P.2d at 1336. Here too, applying the prospectivity of the Manning holding, we decline to commence the time to appeal from the court minute, and conclude that the appeal must commence from an order conforming to 12 O.S.Supp.1993 § 696.3.

On January 4, 1994 a Journal Entry of Judgment was signed by the judge and filed in the District Court. A copy of this journal entry was attached to the amended petition in error mailed to this Court on that date, and received by the Clerk for filing on January 5, 1994. The petition in error filed in June 1993 was premature, it having been filed prior to the appealable event. Aven v. Reeh, 878 P.2d 1069, 1070 (Okla.1994). However, the supplemental petition in error is timely, since it was filed here within thirty days of the date the Journal Entry was filed in the District Court. Matter of Estate of Robinson, 885 P.2d at 1336; 12 O.S.Supp. 1993 § 990A(F). The appeal was timely brought and-shall proceed.

ALMA WILSON, C.J., KAUGER, V.C.J., and HODGES, LAVENDER and WATT, JJ., concur. SIMMS, HARGRAVE and OPALA, JJ., dissent.

1 . The style of the appeal has been corrected to conform to 20 O.S.1991 § 3002.

2 . In response to a show cause order appellant was unable to show May 11th compliance with the "post office” rule. 12 O.S.1993 Supp. § 990A.(B). We also note that this verdict was prior to the enactment of 12 O.S.Supp.1993 § 696.2 which made verdicts a non-appealable form for a judgment.