Christian v. Christian

Christian, 2018 OK 91 (Okla. 2018) · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · December 4, 2018 · No. 115474

Summary

The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that a wife's motion for a new trial was timely under Oklahoma's statutory time-computation rules. In calculating the ten-day filing period, weekends, the legal holiday, and the filing date were excluded. The court reversed the trial court's order, vacated the Court of Civil Appeals' opinion, and remanded for further proceedings.

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Writing for the Court
Combs, C.J.; Gurich, V.C.J.; Kauger, J.; Winchester, J.; Edmondson, J.; Colbert, J.; Wyrick, J.; Darby, J.
Jurisdiction
Oklahoma
Decision date
December 4, 2018
Docket number
115474
Procedural posture
Certiorari review of the Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, decision affirming the trial court's denial of Wife's motion for new trial as untimely.
Standard of review
De novo review applies to questions of statutory interpretation.
Precedential value
unpublished
Parties
Daisy Christian v. Jon Christian
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

dissolution of marriagemotion for new trialfamily law procedurestatutory interpretationappellate procedure

Practice areas

family lawcivil procedureappellate procedurestatutory interpretation

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Wife's July 15, 2016, motion for new trial was timely under 12 O.S. 2011 § 653(A) when the time-computation requirements of 12 O.S. 2011 § 2006(A) are applied.
  2. Whether the trial court erred by denying the motion for new trial as untimely without giving Wife a full and fair opportunity to present the issues raised in the motion and attachments.

Holdings

  1. The ten-day period for filing a motion for new trial under § 653(A) must be computed consistently with § 2006(A), which excludes the triggering day and, for periods shorter than eleven days, excludes intermediate weekends, legal holidays, and specified days when the court clerk is not open for public business until the regularly scheduled closing time.
  2. Wife's motion for new trial was timely because, after applying § 2006(A)'s time-computation rules to the ten-day period in § 653(A), the deadline fell on Friday, July 15, 2016.
  3. The order denying Wife's motion for new trial was reversed, the Court of Civil Appeals opinion was vacated, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Key quotations

Because the time limit prescribed by § 653(A) is only ten- days, weekends, legal holidays, and days when the court clerk is either closed or closes early, are required to be omitted from the computation. (¶ 7)
Applying this principle to the present case, there is no other conclusion to reach but to find the motion for new trial was timely filed. (¶ 8)

Factual background

Jon and Daisy Christian were divorced after a four-day trial, and the decree of dissolution was filed on Friday, June 30, 2016. Daisy filed her motion for new trial on July 15, 2016. The trial court treated the motion as untimely, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed without accounting for the exclusion of weekends, holidays, and other specified nonbusiness days under the statutory time-computation provision.

Procedural history

The Stephens County District Court entered a decree dissolving the parties' marriage on June 30, 2016. Wife filed a motion for new trial or reconsideration on July 15, 2016, which the trial court denied as untimely. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari, reversed the denial, vacated the Court of Civil Appeals opinion, and remanded.

Remand instructions

The trial court must proceed with further proceedings consistent with the opinion and afford Wife a full and fair opportunity to present the issues raised in her timely motion for new trial and its attachments.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…