Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2012 (2026)

Defenses and objections - When and how presented - By

✓ current as of July 2026

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

pleading or motion. DEFENSES AND OBJECTIONS; WHEN AND HOW PRESENTED; BY PLEADING OR MOTION A. WHEN PRESENTED. 1. Unless a different time is prescribed by law, a defendant shall serve an answer: a. within twenty (20) days after the service of the summons and petition upon the defendant, b. within twenty (20) days after the service of the summons and petition upon the defendant, or within the last day for answering if applicable; provided, a defendant may file a reservation of time which shall extend the time to respond twenty (20) days from the last date for answering. The filing of such a reservation of time waives defenses of paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 9 of subsection B of this section. 2. A party served with a pleading stating a cross-claim against that party shall serve an answer thereto within twenty (20) days after the service upon the party. 3. The plaintiff shall serve a reply to a counterclaim in the answer within twenty (20) days after service of the answer or, if a reply is ordered by the court, within twenty (20) days after service of the order, unless the order otherwise directs. 4. The party requesting a summons to be issued or filing a counter-claim or cross-claim may elect to have the answer served within thirty-five (35) days in lieu of the twenty (20) days set forth in this section.

5. The service of a motion permitted under this section or a motion for summary judgment alters these periods of time as follows: if the court denies the motion or postpones its disposition until the trial on the merits, the responsive pleading shall be served within twenty (20) days after notice of the court's action, unless a different time is fixed by order of the court. B. HOW PRESENTED. Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a claim, counterclaim, cross- claim, or third-party claim, shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto if one is required, except that the following defenses may at the option of the pleader be made by motion: 1. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter; 2. Lack of jurisdiction over the person; 3. Improper venue; 4. Insufficiency of process; 5. Insufficiency of service of process; 6. Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; 7. Failure to join a party under Section 2019 of this title; 8. Another action pending between the same parties for the same claim; 9. Lack of capacity of a party to be sued; and 10. Lack of capacity of a party to sue. A motion making any of these defenses shall be made before pleading if a further pleading is permitted. No defense or objection is waived by being joined with one or more other defenses or objections in a responsive pleading or motion. If a pleading sets forth a claim for relief to which the adverse party is not required to serve a responsive pleading, the adverse party may assert at the trial any defense in law or fact to that claim for relief. If, on a motion asserting the defense numbered 6 of this subsection to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to the motion by the rules for summary judgment. A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted shall separately state each omission or defect in the petition, and a motion that does not specify such defects or omissions shall be denied without a hearing and the defendant shall answer within twenty (20) days after notice of the court's action. C. PRELIMINARY HEARINGS. The defenses specifically enumerated in paragraphs 1 through 10 of subsection B of this section, whether made in a pleading or by motion, and the motion to strike mentioned in subsection D of this section shall be heard and determined before trial on application of any party, unless the court orders that the hearing and determination thereof be deferred until the trial. If

the court determines that venue is proper, the action shall not be dismissed for improper venue as a result of the jury's verdict or the subsequent ruling of the court on a demurrer to the evidence or a motion for a directed verdict. D. MOTION TO STRIKE. Upon motion made by a party before responding to a pleading or, if no responsive pleading is permitted by this act, upon motion made by a party within twenty (20) days after the service of the pleading upon the party or upon the court's own initiative at any time, the court may order stricken from any pleading any insufficient defense. If, on a motion to strike an insufficient defense, matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for partial summary judgment and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all materials made pertinent to the motion by the rules for summary judgment. E. CONSOLIDATION OF DEFENSES IN MOTION. A party who makes a motion under this section may join with it any other motions herein provided for and then available to the party. If a party makes a motion under this section but omits therefrom any defense or objection then available to the party which this section permits to be raised by motion, the party shall not thereafter make a motion based on the defense or objection so omitted, except a motion as provided in paragraph 2 of subsection F of this section on the grounds there stated. The court in its discretion may permit a party to amend a motion by stating additional defenses or objections if an amendment is sought at least five (5) days before the hearing on the motion. F. WAIVER OR PRESERVATION OF CERTAIN DEFENSES. 1. A defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person, improper venue, insufficiency of process, insufficiency of service of process, failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or lack of capacity of a party to be sued is waived: a. if omitted from a motion that raises any of the defenses or objections which this section permits to be raised by motion, or b. if it is not made by motion and it is not included in a responsive pleading or an amendment thereof permitted by subsection A of Section 2015 of this title to be made as a matter of course. A motion to strike an insufficient defense is waived if not raised as in subsection D of this section. 2. A defense of failure to join a party indispensable under Section 2019 of this title may be made in any pleading permitted or ordered under subsection A of Section 2007 of this title or at the trial on the merits. A defense of another action pending between the same parties for the same claim or a defense of lack of capacity of a party to sue may be made in any pleading permitted or ordered

pursuant to the provisions of subsection A of Section 2007 of this title or at the pretrial conference. 3. Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action. 4. A waiver of the defense in paragraph 6 of subsection B of this section does not preclude a later contention that a party is not entitled to any relief as a matter of law, either by motion for summary judgment, or by demurrer or motion at or after trial. G. FINAL DISMISSAL ON FAILURE TO AMEND. On granting a motion to dismiss a claim for relief, the court shall grant leave to amend if the defect can be remedied and shall specify the time within which an amended pleading shall be filed. If the amended pleading is not filed within the time allowed, final judgment of dismissal with prejudice shall be entered on motion except in cases of excusable neglect. In such cases amendment shall be made by the party in default within a time specified by the court for filing an amended pleading. Within the time allowed by the court for filing an amended pleading, a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss the action without prejudice. Added by Laws 1984, c. 164, § 12, eff. Nov. 1, 1984. Amended by Laws 2000, c. 380, § 4, eff. Nov. 1, 2000; Laws 2002, c. 468, § 23, eff. Nov. 1, 2002; Laws 2004, c. 181, § 5, eff. Nov. 1, 2004.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 260 cases (51 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case: Sanders v. Turn Key Health Clinics, 2025 OK 19 (Okla. 2025).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Sanders v. Turn Key Health Clinics, 2025 OK 19 (Okla. 2025). · cites it 57× “¶6 Turn Key's motion to dismiss the petition cited 12 O.S. §2012 G. FINAL DISMISSAL ON FAILURE TO AMEND.”

Brown v. Founders Bank & Trust Co., 890 P.2d 855 (Okla. 1994). · cites it 15× “35 Under 12 O.S.1991 § 2012(B)(6), 36 a dismissal for failure to state *865 a claim upon which relief may be granted is appropriate only if it is clear beyond a doubt that no factual situation exists entitling the claimant to relief.”

Frazier v. Bryan Mem'l Hosp. Auth., 775 P.2d 281 (Okla. 1989). · cites it 8× “to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to…”

Powers v. Dist. Court of Tulsa Cnty., 2009 OK 91 (Okla. 2009). · cites it 6× “Husband was served with process in the Oklahoma proceeding but did not answer or otherwise plead within the time allowed by 12 O.S.Supp. 2004 § 2012, and 12 O.S.2001 §§ 2026, 2027, and District Court Rule 2.”

A-Plus Janitorial & Carpet Cleaning v. the Employers' Workers' Comp. Ass'n, 936 P.2d 916 (Okla. 1997). · cites it 10× “12 O.S.1991 § 2012(B). [52] They argued, inter alia, that (a) venue lies not in Tulsa County, where this action was brought, but in the county where the primary events pertaining to the claim against them had occurred, (b) Tulsa County is not their place of business, and (c)…”

Berkson v. State Ex Rel. Askins as Admin. Dir. of the Courts, 2023 OK 70 (Okla. 2023). · cites it 9× “The State invoked 12 O.S. § 2012 28 O.S. § 86 51 O.S.2021 § 151 et seq .”

Tucker v. The Cochran Firm-Crim. Def. Birmingham L.L.C., 2014 OK 112 (Okla. 2014). · cites it 5× “3 motion is a 12 O.S. § 2012(B) motion. 23 . Federal Deposit Ins.”

Washington v. State ex rel. Dep't of Corr., 915 P.2d 359 (Okla. 1996). · cites it 11× “5 TITLE 12 O.S.1991 § 2012 AND RULE 13, 12 O.S.1991, CH.”

Silver v. Slusher, 770 P.2d 878 (Okla. 1989). · cites it 6× “2d 80 [1957]; Committee Comment to 12 O.S.Supp. 1984 § 2012. No harm resulted from the trial court's summary judgment disposition, because the evidentiary materials on record support its ruling.”

Shaffer v. Jeffery, 915 P.2d 910 (Okla. 1996). · cites it 6× “See also 12 O.S.1991 § 2012(B), (a motion for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted with attached extra-record exhibits is treated as a motion for summary judgment).”

Patel v. OMH Med. Ctr., Inc., 1999 OK 33 (Okla. 1999). · cites it 4× “1981 § 267 contained many of the same grounds for challenging the sufficiency of pleadings as are now provided for by the motion to dismiss in 12 O.S.1991 § 2012(B). By analogy, a motion to dismiss may now be interposed against a petition to vacate to the same extent as a…”

Miller v. Miller, 1998 OK 24 (Okla. 1998). · cites it 4× “The terms of 12 O.S.1991 § 2012(B) provide in pertinent part: "Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto if one is required, except…”

Show all 260 citing cases →

— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2012(A) — 14 cases

Powers v. Dist. Court of Tulsa Cnty., 2009 OK 91 (Okla. 2009). “Husband was served with process in the Oklahoma proceeding but did not answer or otherwise plead within the time allowed by 12 O.S.Supp. 2004 § 2012, and 12 O.S.2001 §§ 2026, 2027, and District Court Rule 2.”

Mcbee v. Shanahan Home Design, 2021 OK 60 (Okla. 2021).

Young v. Walton, 807 P.2d 248 (Okla. 1991).

HNATH v. Hereford, 757 F. Supp. 2d 1130 (N.D. Okla. 2010).

Durant Civic Found., Inc. v. Grand Lodge of Oklahoma of the Indep. Order of Odd Fellows, 2008 OK CIV APP 54 (Okla. Civ. App. 2008).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2012(A)(1) — 1 case

HNATH v. Hereford, 757 F. Supp. 2d 1130 (N.D. Okla. 2010).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2012(A)(1)(a) — 1 case

Coulsen v. Owens, 2005 OK CIV APP 93 (Okla. Civ. App. 2005).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2012(A)(1)(b) — 2 cases

In Re Adoption of K.P.M.A., 2014 OK 85 (Okla. 2014).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2012(B) — 83 cases

A-Plus Janitorial & Carpet Cleaning v. the Employers' Workers' Comp. Ass'n, 936 P.2d 916 (Okla. 1997). “12 O.S.1991 § 2012(B). [52] They argued, inter alia, that (a) venue lies not in Tulsa County, where this action was brought, but in the county where the primary events pertaining to the claim against them had occurred, (b) Tulsa County is not their place of business, and (c)…”

Patel v. OMH Med. Ctr., Inc., 1999 OK 33 (Okla. 1999). “1981 § 267 contained many of the same grounds for challenging the sufficiency of pleadings as are now provided for by the motion to dismiss in 12 O.S.1991 § 2012(B). By analogy, a motion to dismiss may now be interposed against a petition to vacate to the same extent as a…”

Miller v. Miller, 1998 OK 24 (Okla. 1998). “The terms of 12 O.S.1991 § 2012(B) provide in pertinent part: "Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto if one is required, except…”

Shaffer v. Jeffery, 915 P.2d 910 (Okla. 1996). “See also 12 O.S.1991 § 2012(B), (a motion for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted with attached extra-record exhibits is treated as a motion for summary judgment).”

Frazier v. Bryan Mem'l Hosp. Auth., 775 P.2d 281 (Okla. 1989). “to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to…”

— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2012(B)(1) — 15 cases

Southon v. Oklahoma Tire Recyclers, LLC, 443 P.3d 566 (Okla. 2019).

Knox v. Oklahoma Gas & Elec. Co., 2024 OK 37 (Okla. 2024).

Southon v. Oklahoma Tire Recyclers, LLC, 2019 OK 37 (Okla. 2019).

Hoyt v. Paul R. Miller, M.D., Inc., 921 P.2d 350 (Okla. 1996).

Jordan v. W. Farmers Elec. Coop., 290 P.3d 9 (Okla. 2012).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2012(B)(10) — 1 case

Sedbrook v. Rouse, 894 P.2d 435 (Okla. Civ. App. 1994).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2012(B)(2) — 4 cases

Montgomery v. Airbus Helicopters, Inc., 414 P.3d 824 (Okla. 2018).

Montgomery v. Airbus Helicopters, 2018 OK 17 (Okla. 2018).

First Texas Sav. Ass'n v. Bernsen, 921 P.2d 1293 (Okla. Civ. App. 1996).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2012(B)(3) — 4 cases

Tucker v. The Cochran Firm-Crim. Def. Birmingham L.L.C., 2014 OK 112 (Okla. 2014). “3 motion is a 12 O.S. § 2012(B) motion. 23 . Federal Deposit Ins.”

Tucker v. The Cochran Firm-Crim. Def. Birmingham L.L.C., 2014 OK 112 (Okla. 2014).

Earnest L. Raab, D.C. v. Nu Skin Enter., Inc. (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).

A.B. Still Wel-Serv. v. Antinum Midcon I, 417 P.3d 1235 (Okla. Civ. App. 2015).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2012(B)(4) — 1 case

Thacker v. Cowling, 2020 OK CIV APP 41 (Okla. Civ. App. 2020).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2012(B)(5) — 1 case

Graff v. Kelly, 814 P.2d 489 (Okla. 1991).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2012(B)(6) — 83 cases

Signature Leasing LLC v. Buyer's Grp. LLC, 2020 OK 50 (Okla. 2020).

Great Plains Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Dabney, 846 P.2d 1088 (Okla. 1993).

Oklahoma Assoc. of Broadcasters, Inc. v. City of Norman, 2016 OK 119 (Okla. 2016).

Tucker v. The Cochran Firm-Crim. Def. Birmingham L.L.C., 2014 OK 112 (Okla. 2014). “3 motion is a 12 O.S. § 2012(B) motion. 23 . Federal Deposit Ins.”

Osage Nation v. Bd. of Commissioners of Osage Cnty. & Osage Nation v. Osage Cnty. Bd. of Adjustment, 2017 OK 34 (Okla. 2017).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2012(B)(7) — 2 cases

Sharp v. 251st Street Landfill, Inc., 810 P.2d 1270 (Okla. 1991).

Lifetouch Nat'l Sch. Studios v. Oklahoma Sch. Pictures, 2024 OK CIV APP 17 (2023).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2012(B)(8) — 2 cases

Patel v. Tulsa Pain Consultants, Inc., 348 P.3d 1117 (Okla. Civ. App. 2015).

Grand Fed. Sav. Bank v. Klingenberg, 821 P.2d 1069 (Okla. Civ. App. 1991).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2012(C) — 1 case

Gaskins v. Texon, Lp, 2014 OK CIV APP 22 (Okla. Civ. App. 2013).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2012(D) — 4 cases

In Re Est. of Geller, 1999 OK CIV APP 45 (Okla. Civ. App. 1999).

Johnson v. Goodman, 1997 OK 77 (Okla. 1997).

Eaves v. Eaves, 14 P.3d 573 (Okla. Civ. App. 2000).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2012(F) — 5 cases

Robinson v. Oklahoma Emp. Sec. Comm'n, 932 P.2d 1120 (Okla. 1997).

Prough v. Edinger, Inc., 862 P.2d 71 (Okla. 1993).

Montgomery v. Airbus Helicopters, 2018 OK 17 (Okla. 2018).

Tulsa Ambulatory Procedure Ctr. v. Olmstead, 2024 OK 57 (Okla. 2024).

Rodriguez v. Moinian, 798 P.2d 232 (Okla. Civ. App. 1990).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2012(F)(1) — 2 cases

Brown v. B & D Land Co., 823 P.2d 380 (Okla. Civ. App. 1991).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2012(F)(1)(b) — 1 case

Thacker v. Cowling, 2020 OK CIV APP 41 (Okla. Civ. App. 2020).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2012(F)(3) — 4 cases

Video Gaming Tech. v. Tulsa Cnty. Bd. of Tax Roll Corr., 2019 OK 84 (Okla. 2019).

Fourpoint Energy v. Bce-mach II, 2021 OK CIV APP 46 (Okla. Civ. App. 2021).

Meadows v. Ward, 950 P.2d 885 (Okla. Civ. App. 1997).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2012(G) — 33 cases

Brown v. Founders Bank & Trust Co., 890 P.2d 855 (Okla. 1994). “35 Under 12 O.S.1991 § 2012(B)(6), 36 a dismissal for failure to state *865 a claim upon which relief may be granted is appropriate only if it is clear beyond a doubt that no factual situation exists entitling the claimant to relief.”

Fanning v. Brown, 2004 OK 7 (Okla. 2004).

Kelly v. Abbott, 781 P.2d 1188 (Okla. 1989).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2012(b)(6) — 2 cases

Snow v. Travelcenters of Am., 2023 OK CIV APP 8 (Okla. Civ. App. 2022).

Metroplex Props., L.L.C. v. Oral Roberts Univ., 1998 OK CIV APP 21 (Okla. Civ. App. 1998).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2012(b)(8) — 2 cases

Patel v. Tulsa Pain Consultants, Inc., 348 P.3d 1117 (Okla. Civ. App. 2015).

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.