 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lee v. Bates12/13/2005
__ P.3d __
ON CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, DIV. III
The question presented on certiorari is whether COCA erred when it affirmed the trial judge's order dismissing the cause for improper venue. We answer in the affirmative.
I. ANATOMY OF THE LITIGATION
Randle and Janell Duncan (plaintiffs or Duncans), residents of Canadian County, are former clients of Julie Bates (Bates), of the law firm of Postic and Bates (defendants, firm or Postic & Bates), whose office is located in Cleveland County. On or about 23 February 2003 Janell Duncan, while at home in Canadian County, contacted Bates, at her home in Cleveland County, concerning a possible adoption she understood Bates to be handling. Janell Duncan expressed an interest in pursuing the adoption, and Julie Bates explained during the phone conversation the terms of the attorney-client contract. The agreement for adoption-connected services was signed the next day in Oklahoma County, and the money due under the contract was subsequently paid by the Duncans to Bates in Oklahoma County. Bates' fee was $20,000, $18,000 of which was non-refundable. She performed legal services, consisting of document preparation and telephone conversations (all done in Cleveland County), as well as of filing an adoption case in Oklahoma County.
Following the birth of the child, its parents decided not to place the infant for adoption. The Duncans allege Bates represented to them the child was indeed available for adoption and all preliminary consents were in place, although she had not ascertained the truth of her assertions. They brought suit in Canadian County against the law firm of Postic & Bates and Bates in her individual capacity alleging 1) breach of fiduciary duty, 2) negligence, 3) false representation to induce them into a contract, and 4) intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendants (including Bates in her individual capacity) challenged the court's jurisdiction and also moved to dismiss the action for improper venue under the provisions of 12 O.S. § 134 - the venue statute governing suits against corporations. The trial judge sustained their motion and dismissed the suit. The Duncans appealed from this ruling in accordance with Rule 1.36, Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules, 12 O.S. 2001, Ch. 15. App., which deals with procedure for accelerated review. COCA affirmed the trial court's order. The Duncans' petition for rehearing was denied. They sought certiorari.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The dispositive issue to be decided is one of law. It calls for a legal conclusion which is governed by a de novo standard of appellate review. When reexamining a trial court's legal rulings, an appellate court exercises plenary, independent and non-deferential authority.
III. COCA'S OPINION AND THE PARTIES' ARGUMENTS ON CERTIORARI
COCA's opinion notes neither party addressed itself to what is proper venue of an action against an individual. Its decision deals solely with the provisions of § 134 which address available venue in a suit brought against a domestic corporation. We choose to confine ourselves, as did COCA, to the issue raised on certiorari. COCA's opinion - affirming the nisi prius decision that dismisses the action for improper venue - relies upon Guaranty State Bank of Tishomingo v. First Nat'l Bank of Ardmore and Perkins v. Perkins. These cases teach " cause of action arises, in the nature of things, at the time when and place where the act is done or omitted which gives the plaintiff the cause of complaint." COCA concludes Bates conducted no activities concerning the case in Canadian County. All of her acts or omissions abo
Page 1 2 3 Oklahoma Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|