Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judicial Decision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oklahoma Supreme Court vacates summary judgment against Terry B. Noble, orders new proceedings
Summary
The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that attorney abandonment and procedural defects deprived Terry B. Noble of his day in court, vacating a $125,000-plus judgment and remanding the case for further proceedings; the court also reversed fee awards tied to the disputed judgment.
The Supreme Court of Oklahoma on Sept. 30, 2025 vacated a district-court summary judgment entered against Terry B. Noble in a dispute with homeowners and sent the case back for further proceedings, finding that counsel’s conduct and procedural errors denied Noble his day in court.
The opinion said the district court granted summary judgment after Noble failed to respond and then entered a journal entry awarding $75,000 in actual damages, $50,000 in punitive damages and $20,000 in attorney’s fees, even though the homeowners’ motion supporting summary judgment had sought $907 in damages. The court held those awards—entered without a post-judgment damages hearing—violated Noble’s statutory and due-process rights.
The court found that defects in defense counsel David E. Johnson’s representation were more than ordinary negligence: Johnson failed to communicate with Noble between February and June 2022, missed the homeowners’ motion for summary judgment, and had a breakdown in office procedures while working from home. The opinion concluded that Johnson’s effective abandonment of the representation, combined with procedural breakdowns and miscommunication, constituted an "unavoidable casualty or misfortune" under 12 O.S. § 1031 and justified vacating the judgment so Noble could litigate the merits.
"Given the circumstances surrounding this case, Noble was not allowed to have his day in court, and the judgment must be vacated," the court wrote, reversing the district court’s ruling and remanding the case for proceedings consistent with the opinion. The court also vacated the Court of Civil Appeals’ opinion and reversed an order that had granted homeowners attorney fees on appeal, concluding the homeowners did not prevail in the appeal and therefore were not entitled to fees on that basis.
The Supreme Court emphasized that a party filing a petition to vacate under 12 O.S. §§ 1031 and 1033 need not plead a defense to the entire cause of action but must present evidence demonstrating at least one ground listed in § 1031—such as unavoidable casualty, fraud, or irregularity. The court found Noble had substantially complied by referencing defenses in his previously filed answer and by contesting the size and basis of the damages and fee awards.
The opinion also addressed the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees, noting Oklahoma follows the American rule that each party bears its own fees unless a statute or contract provides otherwise. The homeowners had not filed an application for fees supported by affidavits or billing records, and the $20,000 fee award lacked the required factual findings or calculations.
A separate opinion dissented in part, arguing the majority erred in its legal treatment of counsel negligence and that Noble’s remedy should be pursued against his former attorney rather than by vacating the judgment. The dissent would have affirmed the trial court.
The Supreme Court’s order vacates the judgment and remands the matter for further proceedings consistent with its opinion; it also vacated the appellate fee award. Noble also has a pending separate malpractice action against his former counsel in Cherokee County, which the Supreme Court said is not prejudiced by its ruling here.
