England v. Walters

ENGLAND v. WALTERS
2011 OK 36
Case Number: 106644
Decided: 05/03/2011

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE PERMANENT LAW REPORTS. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL.

RAYMOND ENGLAND and EVA ENGLAND, Plaintiffs/Appellees,
v.
DOUGLAS D. WALTERS and CINDY M. WALTERS, Defendants/Appellants.

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, DIVISION III

¶0 The trial judge's term expired on Sunday, January 7, 2007, and the next day, before his successor was sworn in, the judge signed a journal entry. The appellants filed a motion to vacate and set aside the judgment asserting that the journal entry was irregular and/or void because the judge lacked legal authority after the expiration of his term of office. The successor judge denied the motion and ordered that the journal entry should stand without modification of the language contained in it. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed and remanded after determining the judgment was void.

CERTIORARI GRANTED;
OPINION OF THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS VACATED;
JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED.

Clark S. Wood, Sallisaw, Oklahoma, for plaintiffs/appellees.
William Orendorff and Matthew Orendorff, Sallisaw, Oklahoma, for defendants/appellants.

WINCHESTER, J.

¶1 The plaintiffs/appellees, Raymond England and Eva England, seek certiorari to review an opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals. That court reversed the trial court's refusal to vacate a judgment signed by a trial judge one day after his term had expired. The primary question before this Court is whether a judgment is valid if signed by the trial judge after his term expired but before his successor takes his oath of office. We hold that the judgment is valid.

¶2 In December of 2006 Judge Garrett conducted a bench trial regarding a land dispute, and took the matter under advisement so he could view the land. After he viewed the land, he told the appellees' counsel that he was ruling in their favor, and asked counsel to prepare a journal entry for his signature. He reviewed the proposed journal entry and signed it the day after his term was set to expire, but before his successor, Judge Payton, took his oath of office.

¶3 The defendants/appellants, Douglas D. Walters and Cindy M. Walters, filed a motion to vacate the judgment, alleging it was void, which motion Judge Payton denied. The appellants filed a petition in error, the Court of Civil Appeals determined the judgment was void, and reversed and remanded the case. The appellees filed a petition for certiorari, which this Court granted.

¶4 Title

¶5 In Coyle v. Smith,

¶6 The Coyle Court cited Article 23, § 10 of the Constitution, which provides: "all officers within this state shall continue to perform the duties of their office until their successors shall be duly qualified", and § 41 of the Schedule of the Constitution, which provides: "All persons elected at the time of the adoption of this Constitution to any of the offices provided under the Constitution shall be deemed to have duly qualified upon their taking the oath of office before any officer authorized by law to administer oaths, and executing such bond as may be required by law". The Court concluded that the framers of the Constitution intended for the terms of the members of the Lower House and the short-term Senators of the First Legislature would be less than two years. The terms were to expire on the fifteenth day succeeding the day of the regular state election in 1908 and the terms of their successors should begin that day. Coyle,

¶7 The application of these provisions of our Constitution as applied to the unique facts found in Coyle reveals why that Court held as it did on this issue. In Robertson v. Brewer,

¶8 Regarding allegations of irregularities in communication between the attorney for the appellees and Judge Garrett, the appellants cite no record revealing irregularities took place. Their allegations seem to remain in the realm of speculation of what may have happened. The trial attorney did not represent the appellants during the appeal, and we have no record of testimony to support these speculations of what communications occurred with the attorneys for the parties during the time Judge Garrett made his decision and signed the journal entry. We will presume the decision of the judge was correctly reached. Reeves v. Agee,

CERTIORARI GRANTED;
OPINION OF THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS VACATED;
JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED.

ALL JUSTICES CONCUR