Van Winkle v. YBar, Inc.

2014 OK 12 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · February 25, 2014 · No. 111527

Summary

The Oklahoma Supreme Court addressed whether venue was proper in Cleveland County for claims arising from the purchase and alleged misrepresentation of a tractor sold in Muskogee County. The court held that venue was improper in Cleveland County and reversed and remanded with instructions to transfer the case to Cherokee or Muskogee County based on the plaintiffs' choice.

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Writing for the Court
Winchester, J.; Reif, V.C.J.; Edmondson, J.; Taylor, J.; Combs, J.; Gurich, J.; Kauger, J.; Colbert, C.J.; Watt, J.
Jurisdiction
Oklahoma
Decision date
February 25, 2014
Docket number
111527
Procedural posture
YBar petitioned for review of a certified interlocutory order denying its motion to dismiss for improper venue. The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the trial court's order, and remanded with instructions to transfer the case rather than dismiss it.
Standard of review
The Supreme Court reviewed the certified interlocutory venue order based on the original record, the arguments presented to the trial court, and the certiorari materials.
Precedential value
Published Oklahoma Supreme Court opinion; precedential
Parties
YBar, Inc. d/b/a Y Bar Rental & Sales v. Terry Van Winkle, Jerry Van Winkle
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

venueinterlocutory appealappellate procedurecivil procedurecontracts

Practice areas

Civil procedureVenueContractsConsumer protection

Questions Presented

  1. Whether venue was proper in Cleveland County under Oklahoma's venue statute for actions against domestic corporations.
  2. Whether the alleged requirement that the tractor remain in Cleveland County constituted an act or omission giving rise to one of the plaintiffs' causes of action there.
  3. Whether the case should be dismissed or transferred when venue is improper.
  4. Whether the plaintiffs could rely on telephone calls and alleged misrepresentations occurring in Cleveland County when that venue argument was not raised below or in the certiorari response.

Holdings

  1. Venue was not proper in Cleveland County because the original record did not establish that any part of the plaintiffs' causes of action arose there.
  2. Venue is procedural rather than jurisdictional.
  3. The Supreme Court would not consider the plaintiffs' argument that telephone calls and misrepresentations occurred in Cleveland County because the argument was not raised at the venue hearing or in the response to the certiorari petition.

Key quotations

Venue is not a jurisdictional requirement, but is merely one of procedure. (¶ 3)
Because this is a matter of procedure and not jurisdiction, we instruct that this case not be dismissed, but transferred to the proper venue (¶ 9)

Factual background

The Van Winkles purchased a tractor from YBar's store in Fort Gibson, Muskogee County. They alleged that YBar represented the tractor as new even though it was used, that the tractor had mechanical problems, and that YBar failed or refused to repair it. They asserted breach of contract, breach of warranty, fraud, and violations of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act, and filed suit in Cleveland County.

Procedural history

The Van Winkles filed claims in Cleveland County arising from their purchase of a tractor from YBar's store in Fort Gibson, located in Muskogee County. YBar moved to dismiss for improper venue, but the Cleveland County District Court denied the motion and certified the order for interlocutory review. The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted review, held venue improper in Cleveland County, and directed transfer to either Cherokee County or Muskogee County based on the plaintiffs' choice.

Remand instructions

The trial court was instructed not to dismiss the case, but to transfer it to the proper venue. The transfer was to be to either Cherokee County, where YBar admitted it attempted warranty repairs, or Muskogee County, where the tractor was sold, the contract was made, and the alleged misrepresentations occurred, with the plaintiffs choosing between those counties.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…