Click Here to Watch How To Find A Lawyer by Kent Morlan
Click Here For The Best Enid Family Law Lawyer Directory
If no lawyer is listed, call 918-582-6422 and MoreLaw will help you find a lawyer for free.
Defendant's Attorney:
Description: Enid, Oklahoma family law lawyers represented Petitioner and Respondent in a child custody dispute.
¶2 The petitioner/appellee, Maria A. Laubach (mother) filed for divorce from the respondent/appellant, Paul W. Laubach (father), on March 17, 2016. The parties divided their property by agreement, leaving the issue of custody to be tried on November 14-15, 2016. At the time of the hearing, the mother indicated to the trial court that she intended to relocate from Enid to Edmond after the divorce for employment opportunities. The trial court entered an order awarding the mother custody of the parties' children and set forth the father's visitation.
¶3 However, on May 15, 2017, the mother filed a notice of her intent to relocate with the children from Enid, across the state to Oologah, Oklahoma, because she had purchased a business there. The father filed an objection, and the trial court set the issue for hearing on April 9 and 10, 2018. On April 6, 2018, the father responded to the mother's relocation request by filing a motion to modify custody, arguing that the mother's relocation plan to move to Oologah, three hours away from him, was a substantial and material change adverse to the best interests of the children.
¶4 After a two day hearing, the trial court granted the mother's request to relocate, and denied the father's motion to modify custody. The court filed a minute order on April 17, 2018, which reflected its ruling on the hearing. It is this order we are addressing.
¶5 Subsequently, several other hearings were held, and the trial court entered a multitude of orders. The cause eventually culminated in two appeals: appeal number 117,545 filed on November 21, 2018, concerning whether the trial court erred in denying the father's petition to vacate custody order and previously filed motion for a new trial; and appeal number 117,654, on January 2, 2019, concerning whether to vacate another custody order and another previously filed motion for new trial. We consolidated the appeals on January 9, 2019, and assigned them to the Court of Civil Appeals on October 16, 2019. On October 18, 2021, the Court of Civil Appeals issued an opinion affirming the trial court in part and dismissing a portion of the appeal in part. We granted certiorari on June 27, 2022.2
Outcome: ¶15 Written instruments titled "court minute," "minute order," "minute," or "summary order" cannot meet the definition of an order which triggers the procedural time limits for appeal, regardless of their substance, content, or length. Accordingly the Court of Civil Appeals' determination that the April 17, 2018, minute order was an appealable order for purposes of triggering procedural time limits for appeals was in error. We remand this cause to the Court of Civil Appeals for resolutions of the merits of the appellant's assignments of error pertaining to his appeals.
CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED;
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OPINION VACATED;
REASSIGNED TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
