Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 1031 (2026)

District court - Power to vacate or modify its judgments,

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

when. The district court shall have power to vacate or modify its own judgments or orders within the times prescribed hereafter: 1. By granting a new trial for the cause, within the time and in the manner prescribed in Sections 651 through 655 of this title; 2. As authorized in subsection C of Section 2004 of this title where the defendant had no actual notice of the pendency of the action at the time of the filing of the judgment or order; 3. For mistake, neglect, or omission of the clerk or irregularity in obtaining a judgment or order; 4. For fraud, practiced by the successful party, in obtaining a judgment or order; 5. For erroneous proceedings against an infant, or a person of unsound mind, where the condition of such defendant does not appear in the record, nor the error in the proceedings; 6. For the death of one of the parties before the judgment in the action; 7. For unavoidable casualty or misfortune, preventing the party from prosecuting or defending; 8. For errors in a judgment, shown by an infant in twelve (12) months after arriving at full age, as prescribed in Section 700 of this title; or 9. For taking judgments upon warrants of attorney for more than was due to the plaintiff, when the defendant was not summoned or otherwise legally notified of the time and place of taking such judgment. R.L. 1910, Section 5267. Amended by Laws 1969, c. 304, § 3, emerg. eff. April 28, 1969; Laws 1999, c. 293, § 9, eff. Nov. 1, 1999.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 200 cases (18 in the last 5 years), 1953–2026 · leading case: Patel v. OMH Med. Ctr., Inc., 1999 OK 33 (Okla. 1999).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Patel v. OMH Med. Ctr., Inc., 1999 OK 33 (Okla. 1999). · cites it 12× “[13] A vacation proceeding under 12 O.S.1991 § 1031 is a legislatively created remedial mechanism in which a litigant seeks not a judgment, but rather relief from a judgment.”

Miller v. Miller, 1998 OK 24 (Okla. 1998). · cites it 6× “and therefore failed to state a cause of action.”

Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Smith, 581 P.2d 31 (Okla. 1978). · cites it 14× “We also note that the Motion to Reconsider must in the case before us be treated as a Motion for New Trial as the Motion could not have properly been considered a Motion to Modify or Vacate under the provisions of 12 O.S. § 1031(2 through 9), for no facts were plead or proven to…”

Hammer v. State, 2022 OK 80 (Okla. 2022). · cites it 10× “, 12 O.S. 2011, § 1031 McGirt , and then generally claimed the district court lacked jurisdiction.”

Schepp v. Hess, 770 P.2d 34 (Okla. 1989). · cites it 4× “The dispositive issues are: 1) Did the trial court have the authority to vacate its decree and to pronounce a new decision on the merits in response to a timely term-time “motion to reconsider” rested on grounds different from those prescribed by 12 O.S.1981 § 1031 1 as well.as…”

Stork v. Stork, 898 P.2d 732 (Okla. 1995). · cites it 5× “1991 § 1031 11 A judgment whose terms exclude some essential elements of the bargain upon which it was based may be subject either to vacation or modification under the provisions of 12 O.S.1991 § 1031. 12 Unless void upon the face of the judgment roll, no judgment may be…”

FDIC v. Jernigan, 901 P.2d 793 (Okla. 1995). · cites it 7× “For the pertinent terms of 12 O.S.1991 § 1031 (3), see supra note 29.”

Knell v. Burnes, 645 P.2d 471 (Okla. 1982). · cites it 4× “In Minnesota Mining, this Court held that the motion to reconsider filed in that case had to be treated as a motion for new trial because no facts were plead or proven to bring the motion within the purview of 12 O.S.1971 § 1031. 6 This statute *474 delineates the basis upon…”

Berkson v. State Ex Rel. Askins as Admin. Dir. of the Courts, 2023 OK 70 (Okla. 2023). · cites it 3× “36(k), we have explained in an appeal from an order denying 12 O.S. §1031 or §1031.1 relief "this court may not look to the original judgment but stands confined in its review to the correctness of the trial court's action" deciding the motion filed pursuant to 12 O.”

Dickason v. Dickason, 607 P.2d 674 (Okla. 1980). · cites it 3× “The terms of a judgment actually pronounced but inadvertently omitted from its written memorial by scrivener’s error may be supplied nunc pro tunc at any time *677 to make the record “speak the truth judgment whose terms exclude some essential elements of the bargain upon which…”

Heiman v. Atl. Richfield Co., 807 P.2d 257 (Okla. 1991). · cites it 4× “According to the journal entry, the trial judge relied upon the terms of 12 O.S.1981 § 1031(Third), 4 which authorize an order’s vacation for “irregularity.”

Davidson v. Gregory, 780 P.2d 679 (Okla. 1989). · cites it 3× “Burris moved to vacate the default foreclosure decree on April 18, 1985, alleging as grounds two irregularities within the meaning of 12 O.S.1981 § 1031 (Third): 3 (1) the plaintiffs did not give him notice of their intent to take default judgment, which is required by Rule 10,…”

Show all 200 citing cases →

— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 1031(2) — 1 case

Williams v. Meeker North Dawson Nursing LLC, 2019 OK 80 (Okla. 2019).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 1031(2)(4) — 1 case

Mortg. Elec. Reg. Sys., Inc. v. Crutchfield, 2006 OK CIV APP 95 (Okla. Civ. App. 2006).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 1031(3) — 18 cases

FDIC v. Jernigan, 901 P.2d 793 (Okla. 1995). “For the pertinent terms of 12 O.S.1991 § 1031 (3), see supra note 29.”

Knell v. Burnes, 645 P.2d 471 (Okla. 1982). “In Minnesota Mining, this Court held that the motion to reconsider filed in that case had to be treated as a motion for new trial because no facts were plead or proven to bring the motion within the purview of 12 O.S.1971 § 1031. 6 This statute *474 delineates the basis upon…”

Stork v. Stork, 898 P.2d 732 (Okla. 1995). “1991 § 1031 11 A judgment whose terms exclude some essential elements of the bargain upon which it was based may be subject either to vacation or modification under the provisions of 12 O.S.1991 § 1031. 12 Unless void upon the face of the judgment roll, no judgment may be…”

Davis v. Addy, 132 P.3d 609 (Okla. Civ. App. 2005).

Genoff Farms, Inc. v. Seven Oaks South, LLC, 2011 OK CIV APP 29 (Okla. Civ. App. 2011).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 1031(4) — 17 cases

Patel v. OMH Med. Ctr., Inc., 1999 OK 33 (Okla. 1999). “[13] A vacation proceeding under 12 O.S.1991 § 1031 is a legislatively created remedial mechanism in which a litigant seeks not a judgment, but rather relief from a judgment.”

Miller v. Miller, 1998 OK 24 (Okla. 1998). “and therefore failed to state a cause of action.”

Hill v. Blevins, 2005 OK 11 (Okla. 2005).

Paul v. Williamson, 2014 OK CIV APP 31 (Okla. Civ. App. 2014).

FDIC v. Jernigan, 901 P.2d 793 (Okla. 1995). “For the pertinent terms of 12 O.S.1991 § 1031 (3), see supra note 29.”

— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 1031(7) — 6 cases

St. John Med. Ctr. v. Brown, 125 P.3d 700 (Okla. Civ. App. 2005).

S. Bond Co. v. Teel, 550 P.2d 571 (Okla. 1976).

Murie v. Harting, 324 P.3d 1269 (Okla. Civ. App. 2014).

Asset Acceptance v. Pham, 415 P.3d 47 (Okla. Civ. App. 2016).

Woods v. Comput. Sciences Corp., 2011 OK CIV APP 17 (Okla. Civ. App. 2010).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 1031(9) — 1 case

Asset Acceptance v. Pham, 415 P.3d 47 (Okla. Civ. App. 2016).

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.