 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kohler v. Kline and Kline9/18/2001
Modified: 01/16/2002
Mandate Issued: 01/11/2002
__ P.3d __
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA HONORABLE KARL R. GRAY, TRIAL JUDGE
AFFIRMED
Plaintiff, Paul Kohler, appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to set aside a summary judgment granted in favor of Defendant, Kline & Kline, Inc. The issue on appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to set aside the summary judgment. Upon review of the record and applicable law, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and affirm.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant, a law firm, in May 1999, claiming that Defendant was negligent in representing him in a bankruptcy proceeding. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant failed to appear at a bankruptcy hearing on his behalf and that, as a result, the bankruptcy court entered a default judgment on behalf of his creditors. Defendant raised several affirmative defenses in its answer, including failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, estoppel, laches, waiver, and statute of limitations.
On July 28, 2000, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that "Plaintiff did not have a contractual relationship with the Defendant and therefore has no basis for a claim seeking damages against the Defendant." In its brief in support of its motion for summary judgment, Defendant asserted that, although it represented Kohler Ranch, Inc. in a bankruptcy proceeding, it never represented Plaintiff in a bankruptcy matter, and was therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The trial court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment on September 7, 2000.
Plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the summary judgment on October 2, 2000. Plaintiff's motion merely alleged the following: "1. That the Court entered a Summary Judgment in favor of Defendant, Kline and Kline, Inc. on September 1, 2000. 2. Questions of fact exist concerning this matter. 3. Plaintiff states a legal claim for relief against Defendant."
Defendant objected on the ground that Plaintiff failed to show "sufficient cause for this Court to vacate the Judgment rendered in favor of the Defendant" under 12 O.S. Supp. 2000 § 1031.1. Plaintiff responded with a supplement to his motion to set aside the summary judgment. Represented by a new attorney, Plaintiff asserted that his previous attorney had failed to respond to the motion for summary judgment and had also failed to appear at the hearing. Plaintiff further asserted that the trial court's grant of summary judgment was based upon the fact that he was not the real party in interest.
In its objection, Defendant argued that the trial court did not dismiss the cause of action based upon a real party in interest claim, but in fact granted summary judgment because it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Defendant further asserted that Plaintiff had failed to allege any sufficient grounds for vacating the judgment under 12 O.S. Supp. 2000 § 1031. The trial court entered an order on December 5, 2000, denying Plaintiff's motion to set aside the summary judgment.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Plaintiff's "motion to set aside summary judgment" can best be described as a motion to vacate. A trial court has the authority to vacate a judgment upon motion of a party if such motion is filed within 30 days from the date of a judgment, decree, or appealable order. 12 O.S. Supp. 2000 § 1031.1(B). In Schepp v. Hess, 1989 OK 28, 7-8, 770 P.2d 34, 37-38, the supreme court explained the power of the trial court under section 1031.1 as follows:<
Page 1 2 3 4 Oklahoma Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|