judgments - Time - Notice. A. A court may correct, open, modify or vacate a judgment, decree, or appealable order on its own initiative not later than thirty (30) days after the judgment, decree, or appealable order prepared in conformance with Section 696.3 of this title has been filed with the court clerk. Notice of the court's action shall be given as directed by the court to all affected parties.
B. On motion of a party made not later than thirty (30) days after a judgment, decree, or appealable order prepared in conformance with Section 696.3 of this title has been filed with the court clerk, the court may correct, open, modify, or vacate the judgment, decree, or appealable order. If the moving party did not prepare the judgment, decree, or appealable order, and Section 696.2 of this title required a copy of the judgment, decree, or appealable order to be mailed to the moving party, and the court records do not reflect the mailing of a copy of the judgment, decree, or appealable order to the moving party within three (3) days, exclusive of weekends and holidays, after the filing of the judgment, decree, or appealable order, the motion to correct, open, modify, or vacate the judgment, decree, or appealable order may be filed no later than thirty (30) days after the earliest date on which the court records show that a copy of the judgment, decree, or appealable order was mailed to the moving party. The moving party shall give notice to all affected parties. A motion to correct, open, modify, or vacate a judgment or decree filed after the announcement of the decision on all issues in the case but before the filing of the judgment or decree shall be deemed filed immediately after the filing of the judgment or decree. C. If more than thirty (30) days have passed since the filing of a judgment, decree, or appealable order, proceedings to vacate or modify the judgment, decree, or appealable order shall be by petition in conformance with Section 1033 of this title unless approved by all parties who have entered an appearance in the lawsuit. D. The party that prevails in an action to vacate any judgment, decree or appealable order shall only be considered the prevailing party for the purpose of the award of costs, to include a reasonable attorney fee, if such party prevails on the merits in the underlying action. Added by Laws 1969, c. 304, § 1, emerg. eff. April 28, 1969. Amended by Laws 1990, c. 251, § 15, eff. Jan. 1, 1991; Laws 1991, c. 251, § 19, eff. June 1, 1991; Laws 1993, c. 351, § 25, eff. Oct. 1, 1993; Laws 1994, c. 343, § 6, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Laws 1997, c. 102, § 9, eff. May 1, 1997; Laws 1999, c. 293, § 10, eff. Nov. 1, 1999; Laws 2013, c. 18, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2013.
Notes of Decisions
Berkson v. State Ex Rel. Askins as Admin. Dir. of the Courts, 2023 OK 70 (Okla. 2023).
· cites it 16× “36 a term-time motion to vacate pursuant to 12 O.S. §1031.1 ¶10 The two assigned errors in procedure are: (1) "Whether the District Court erred by failing to require submission of Defendants' proposed orders for review by Plaintiff in violation of Tulsa Local Civil Rule 29;" and…”
Est. of Hughes v. Hepler, 2004 OK 20 (Okla. 2004).
· cites it 10× “The Court of Civil Appeals found that Hepler's motion to vacate was grounded in events that occurred after the probate court's order distributed the estate assets to her as the sole beneficiary and therefore, the attorney fee dispute was not cognizable in the probate proceeding.”
Schepp v. Hess, 770 P.2d 34 (Okla. 1989).
· cites it 6× “1981 § 1081, 5 the motion was ineffective to invoke the trial court’s term-time vacation power under 12 O.S.1981 § 1031.1. 6 The appellate court relied upon our pronouncement in Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co.”
Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Smith, 581 P.2d 31 (Okla. 1978).
· cites it 10× “We do so because the thirty day provision of 12 O.S. § 1031.1 is merely a substitute for the old "term of court rule" [1] which was repealed by the Oklahoma State Legislature.”
McMillian v. Holcomb, 907 P.2d 1034 (Okla. 1995).
· cites it 6× “§ 651 motion for new trial or a term-time motion to vacate pursuant to 12 O.S. § 1031.1. Schepp v. Hess, 770 P.2d 34, 36 (Okla.”
Knell v. Burnes, 645 P.2d 471 (Okla. 1982).
· cites it 5× “The motion to reconsider was filed within thirty days after the final order as required by 12 O.S.1971 § 1031.1, 7 and the petition in error was filed within thirty days after the motion to reconsider was denied.”
LCR, INC. v. Linwood Props., 918 P.2d 1388 (Okla. 1996).
· cites it 3× “The July 6 order cannot be treated as a term-time vacation order in the 12 O.S.1991 § 1031.1 sense. It is not addressed to a judgment, decree or appealable order.”
Matter of Chad S., 580 P.2d 983 (Okla. 1978).
· cites it 2× “5 The order vacating the original termination and the subsequent hearing and order of June 7, are void and of no force and effect being untimely; see 12 O.S.1971 § 1031.1. Trial court had no authority to make these orders.”
Rodgers v. Higgins, 871 P.2d 398 (Okla. 1994).
· cites it 2× “See 12 O.S.1991 § 1031.1, infra note 82; 12 O.”
Tucker v. The Cochran Firm-Crim. Def. Birmingham L.L.C., 2014 OK 112 (Okla. 2014).
“Lawyers for the Cochran Firm subsequently sought to vacate the trial court's ruling pursuant to 12 O.S. § 1031.1 with an argument that the person who signed the initial motion to dismiss was "a member" of the Cochran Firm acting as a "pro se defendant.”
Powers v. Dist. Court of Tulsa Cnty., 2009 OK 91 (Okla. 2009).
“[27] Husband's motion to vacate the order of temporary support invoked 12 O.S.2001 § 1031.1. A § 1031.1 motion, when used, must be used to challenge a judgment, decree, or appealable order.”
Corbit v. Williams, 897 P.2d 1129 (Okla. 1995).
· cites it 3× “[9] The terms of 12 O.S.Supp. 1993 § 1031.1 provide in pertinent part: "B.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 1031.1(A) — 3 cases
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 1031.1(B) — 6 cases
LCR, INC. v. Linwood Props., 918 P.2d 1388 (Okla. 1996).
“The July 6 order cannot be treated as a term-time vacation order in the 12 O.S.1991 § 1031.1 sense. It is not addressed to a judgment, decree or appealable order.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 1031.1(C) — 6 cases
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.