Tag Archives: UTCR 5.100

Tiplet: Proposed Judgments and Orders

Posted on by
1

Questions about submitting proposed judgments and orders under UTCR 5.100? Wondering what notice you have to give to the other side?  Here is a handy-dandy reference from Multnomah County’s Family Law Court, published by the Professional Liability Fund.

While this was written with family law practitioners in mind, it’s a useful resource for any practitioner.  Here are a few highlights:

What does UTCR 5.100 require?

With few exceptions, you must provide notice to the other party before submitting a proposed order or judgment. If the other party is self-represented, you must also include notice of the timeframe that party has to object. If you receive objections, you must attempt to resolve them.  Additionally, every proposed order and judgment must contain a Certificate of Readiness telling the Judge why the document is ready for judicial signature and setting out the status of any objections received.

Why do we need UTCR 5.100?

There are three main reasons why proposed orders and judgments must be processed according to this rule:

  1. Documents requiring judicial signature are routed separately through the court’s electronic case management system.  Segregating proposed orders and judgments is efficient and speeds up the signing process.
  2. There is no system which allows the court to “hold” documents waiting for time periods to pass prior to judicial signature.
  3. Pro se litigants need proper notice.

What is the notice period under UTCR 5.100?

“When the other side is represented, the drafter must wait 3 days, plus an additional 3, before submitting the document to court. When the other side is self-represented, the drafter must wait 7 days, plus an additional 3. The “3 extra days” requirement derives from ORCP 10B, which was modified by the 2015 Oregon Legislature to apply the 3-day extension to service by email, fax, and electronic service instead of just posted mail. UTCR 1.130 applies ORCP 10 to time periods set by the UTCRs.”

Other FAQs

Four pages of answers await here for practitioners.  Get answers to questions like:

  • What are the situations where a statute or rule authorizes submission [of a proposed order] without notice?
  • Can I combine my Certificate of Readiness with a Certificate of Service?
  • Is the Certificate of Readiness filed as a separate document, or somehow incorporated into my proposed order of judgment?
  • Does my Certificate of Readiness have to set out the address at which I served the other party with the copy of the proposed order/judgment?
  • Does this rule apply to Motions to Postpone?

Keep in mind that in some instances UTCR 5.100 is either unclear or does not explicitly address all situations.  This makes the FAQ re UTCR 5.100 in Multnomah County Family Court a very valuable reference.

All Rights Reserved – Beverly Michaelis – 2018

 

 

UTCR Amendments

Posted on by
1

2016 features a host of normal cycle and out-of-cycle amendments to the Uniform Trial Court Rules.  All are effective August 1, 2016.  For a complete list, see the summary provided here, pages 1-5.  Key changes, including several to eCourt, are summarized below.

 eCourt

Confidential Attachments in Filings that are not Otherwise Confidential

  • If a filing is not confidential, but includes an attachment that is, file the attachment separately.  UTCR 21.040(2)(b), amended out-of-cycle on June 15, 2016 pursuant to CJO 16-027.
  • Filers must designate the attachment as confidential in the eFiling system and include an appropriate description in the filing comments field. UTCR 21.040(2)(b), amended out-of-cycle on June 15, 2016 pursuant to CJO 16-027.

Filings in Confidential Cases

  • If a case is confidential by statute or rule, documents filed in the case must not be designated as confidential.
  • However, if a particular document within a confidential case is itself confidential by statute or rule, it must be designated as such when filed.
  • For rules pertaining to Adoption Cases, see new UTCR 21.070(7).

UTCR 21.070(6), amended out-of-cycle; UTCR 21.070(7), newly added on June 15, 2016 pursuant to CJO 16-027.

Certificates of Service Incorporated with a Document Must Be Filed as a Single, Unified PDF

Certificates of Service are now part of the “single, unified PDF” requirement.  UTCR 21.040(2), amended out-of-cycle on June 15, 2016 pursuant to CJO 16-027.

Proof of Electronic Service

The amended rule requires a dated and signed certificate of service to be incorporated at the end of any document submitted electronically.

  • If the opposing party was electronically served by the eFiling system, the certificate must state that service was accomplished at the party’s email address as recorded on the date of service in the eFiling system and need not include the party’s email address or postal address.
  • If the opposing party was not electronically served by the eFiling system, the certificate must include the postal address at which the opposing party was served or, if served by email or facsimile.

UTCR 21.100(6), amended out-of-cycle on June 15, 2016 pursuant to CJO 16-027.

Electronic Service to Remain an Additional, Affirmative Step

The UTCR committee declined to amend UTCR 21.100 to make electronic service mandatory or to require simultaneous service by email.  See discussion, UTCRs effective August 1, 2016, pages 55-56.

Expedited Filings

A filer who submits an expedited filing must include the words “EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION REQUESTED” in the filing comments field.  The filer may “notify the court by email or telephone, as designated on the court’s judicial district website, that an expedited filing has been eFiled in the case.”  UTCR 21.070(5), amended out-of-cycle on June 15, 2016 pursuant to CJO 16-027.

Submission of Proposed Orders and Judgments

The out-of-cycle changes to UTCR 5.100 are described in the official explanation as follows:

  • The revision to UTCR 5.100 breaks the current rule into three parts: service, objection, and submission.
  • Subsection 1 requires service on the opposing party, and an opportunity for objection, as to any proposed order or judgment unless an exception applies. The rule is no longer limited to only those proposed orders and judgments submitted “in response to a ruling of the court.”
  • The service component also sets out specific notice requirements and lengthens the time between service and submission to 10 days from 3 days (current, if opposing party represented) or from 7 days (current, if opposing party not represented).  The notice requirement specifies that an opposing party has 7 days to object, with an additional 3 days for mailing, consistently with ORCP 10 C.
  • Subsection 2 relates to objections and is new.  It requires service of a written, dated, and signed objection within 7 days of the date that the proposed order or judgment was sent to the opposing party.  The drafting party may submit the opposing party’s objection to the court or the opposing party may file an objection by an identified date.
  • The submission part (subsection (3)) retains the current certificate of service requirement and also clarifies that a proposed order or judgment subject to subsection (1) may be submitted sooner than the 7-day period for objection, if the opposing party has stipulated to or approved the order or judgment, or the opposing party has objected and the objections are resolved or ready for resolution.  Additionally, proposed orders or judgments must include a “certificate of readiness,” certifying that the proposed order or judgment is ready for judicial signature or that objections are ready for resolution, and also stating the “readiness” reason.

UTCRs effective August 1, 2016, pages 58-61.

Register of Actions – Entry Date of a Document

The following apply whether or not a document is electronically filed with the court:

  • The filing date is the date that appears in the “date column” of the Register of Actions:  “For the purpose of ORS 7.020(1) and (2), the date that a document was filed displays in the date column of the register of actions for the case in the court’s electronic case management system.”
  • The “entry date” is the date when the event is created in the Register of Actions. “For the purpose of ORS 7.020(2), entry occurs on the date an event is created in the register of actions.”

UTCR 21.060(3), amended out-of-cycle on June 15, 2016 pursuant to CJO 16-027.

Staples and Backing Sheets Prohibited in Conventional Filings;
One Inch Margins Required

  • Pleadings and other documents submitted conventionally must be bound by paperclip or binder clip and must not contain staples.  Amended UTCR 2.010(3)(b).
  • If your document includes an attachment, the attachment must be bound in one packet to the document being filed using a paperclip or binder clip only.  Amended UTCR 2.010(3)(b).
  • The use of backing sheets is prohibited.  Amended UTCR 2.010(5).
  • All documents must have a one-inch margin on each side (except Wills and exhibits).  Amended UTCR 2.010(4)(d).

Consolidated Filings

A party filing any document applicable to more than one case must file the document in each case using existing case numbers and captions, unless otherwise ordered by the court or provided by SLR.  If filing conventionally into cases consolidated for hearing or trial, it is the filer’s responsibility to provide the trial court administrator with sufficient copies.  Amended UTCR 2.090(1).

CIFS

Access to Confidential Information Forms (CIFs) by Non-Parties

Non parties may inspect a CIF upon filing an affidavit of consent, signed and dated by the party whose information is to be inspected. The consent must state the dates during which the consent is effective.  Amended UTCR 2.130(6)(c).  Declarations under penalty of perjury may not be used in lieu of an Affidavit.  Amended UTCR 2.130(6)(d).

Use of CIFs in Additional Proceedings

Use of a CIF is now required in proceedings that are subject to the federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Specifically, the amended rule adds citations to proceedings initiated under ORS 24.190, ORS 30.866, ORS 124.010, or ORS 163.763. Amended UTCR 2.130(2).

Notice of Termination, Substitution of Counsel, Application to Resign

Must now include “court contact information,” as defined in UTCR 1.110.  Amended UTCR 3.140(1).

Stipulated and Ex Parte Matters

Local judicial districts are expressly allowed to adopt an SLR designating when stipulated or ex parte matters must be filed conventionally.  Amended UTCR 5.060(1).

Trial Memoranda and Exhibits

Trial memoranda must be filed and served on the opposing party; the court may require parties to submit copies in a time and manner specified. Trial exhibits must be submitted as ordered by the court and not filed with the court.  Amended UTCR 6.050.

Jury Instructions and Verdict Forms Must Be Filed and Served

Jury instructions and verdict forms must be filed and served on the opposing party; the court may require parties to submit copies in a time and manner specified. Amended UTCR 6.060.

Dissolution of Marriage – Notices and Judgments

The notice of dissolution form required under ORS 107.092 is now available on the OJD website; filing multiple copies of the General Judgment of Dissolution is no longer required.  Amended UTCR 8.010.

Uniform Support Declarations/Affidavits Filed by DCS or DA

Uniform Support Declarations or DCS/DA affidavits must be filed and served within 30 days of service of a petition or other pleading that seeks child support or spousal support on other than a temporary basis, subject to the requirements of UTCR 8.040 or UTCR 8.050, when applicable, and in the absence of an SLR to the contrary.  Amended UTCR 8.010(6).  Also see amended UTCR 8.050(3) relating to judgment modification proceedings and amended UTCR 8.040(4) relating to Uniform Support Declarations accompanying a Motion for Temporary Support.

Limited Scope Representation in Domestic Relations Cases [New]

  • Requires attorneys who intend to appear on a limited scope basis to file and serve a Notice of Limited Scope Representation in substantially the same form as set out on the OJD website.  UTCR 8.110(2).
  • Requires attorneys who have completed all services under the Limited Scope Representation to file a Notice of Termination of Limited Scope Representation in substantially the form as set out on the Oregon Judicial Department website. UTCR 8.110(3).
  • Service in limited scope cases shall be made upon the attorney and the party represented on a limited scope basis.  [Service on the attorney ends when a Notice of Termination is filed.]  UTCR 8.110(4).

Arbitration Awards – Submission and Filing Time Extended

The time for submitting an Arbitration Award to the parties is extended from 7 to 28 days. Amended UTCR 13.210(5) and (6).  Amended UTCR 13.220 now allows for an extended filing time with the court of 42 days.

Amended Forms

The following forms were also amended:

All Rights Reserved Beverly Michaelis – 2016.

 

 

Oregon Civil Procedure – Amendments Coming to UTCR 5.100

Posted on by
1

Out-of-cycle amendments are coming to UTCR 5.100, which governs submission of proposed orders and judgments.  The amendments will affect conventional filers and eFilers, but are designed to address the following concerns raised by judges who sign proposed orders and judgments using the new eCourt system:

  • It is difficult, if not impossible, to know whether proposed orders or judgments are ready for judicial signature;
  • A sufficient and uniform time period to object to proposed orders or judgments is presently lacking;
  • Opposing parties need clear instructions on how to object to proposed orders or judgments; and
  • Protocols are necessary to ensure that parties work to resolve objections before submitting disputed orders and judgments.

For clarity, the proposal to amend UTCR 5.100 breaks the rule up into three parts:

Service

“As amended, the service component … requires service on the opposing party, and an opportunity for objection, as to any proposed order or judgment unless an exception applies. The rule is no longer limited to only those proposed orders and judgments submitted “in response to a ruling of the court.” The purpose of the updated wording is to ensure that the opposing party has a reasonable opportunity to object. The service component also sets out specific notice requirements and lengthens the time between service and submission.”  Read more here.

Objection

The objection component is new and requires service of a written, dated, and signed objection within 7 days of the date that the proposed order or judgment was sent to the opposing party.  If an objection is served by the opposing party, the drafting party must make a reasonable effort to resolve the objection before submitting the proposed order or judgment to the court. However, opposing parties are also permitted to file objections directly with the court.

Practice Tip:  Opposing parties who file an objection directly with the court are required to include in the caption “Objection to Proposed [Order/Judgment]” and must describe the nature of the proposed order or judgment.  If the opposing party requests oral argument, the request must be stated in the caption.

More details are available here.

Submission

The submission component:

  • Retains the Certificate of Service requirement
  • Adds a “Certificate of Readiness” requirement
  • Clarifies that a proposed order or judgment may be submitted sooner than the 7-day period for objection, if:
    • the opposing party has stipulated to or approved the order or judgment, or
    • the opposing party has objected and the objections are resolved or ready for resolution.

The “Certificate of Readiness” certifies that the proposed order or judgment is ready for judicial signature or that objections are ready for resolution, and provides the “readiness” reason.  It will eliminate the need for judges to access multiple documents in the eCourt system to ensure that a proposed order or judgment is ready for signature.

Practice Tip:  UTCR 5.100(3)(c) sets out the language to be used in a “Certificate of Readiness.”  Filers are required to use substantially the same form.  When the rule is adopted, maximize efficiency by copying and pasting the “Certificate of Readiness” language into a template that you can re-use each time you submit a proposed Order or Judgment.

Read more here.

This is the second go-around in the proposed amendment process for UTCR 5.100.  Public comment on proposed revisions will be accepted until August 17.  Since the intention is to amend the rule out-of-cycle, expect an effective date around or before September 1.

[All Rights Reserved Beverly Michaelis 2015]

Oregon eCourt – Where are we now?

Posted on by
1

Judging by the numbers, Oregon eCourt is a success.  In February, March, and April of this year an average of 65,666 documents were filed electronically using the Odyssey eFile and Serve system:  efilings 2015Easy-Peasy or a Bumpy Ride?

The transition from paper-based filing to eFiling hasn’t been easy.

A record number of Oregon lawyers went inactive or resigned from the bar in December 2014/January 2015, leading some to speculate that mandatory eFiling drove veteran members to retire sooner than originally planned.

Why might that be?  eFiling requires an investment of time and money. To succeed, eFilers need to know the rules, understand the technology, subscribe to OJIN/OJCIN, and buy a decent scanner and PDF conversion software.

Rejection Rates

For those who persevered, kudos to you!   Of the 197,000 filings in February, March, and April of this year, less than 10% were rejected.  Bottom line: Oregon lawyers [or their staff] are getting it right.

New Policy and Standards for Acceptance of Electronic Filings

Effective July 1, 2015 Chief Justice Balmer signed Chief Justice Order 15–026, which adopts the OJD Policy and Standards for Acceptance of Electronic Filings in the Oregon Circuit Courts [dated May 22, 2015]:

Statewide standards for the acceptance of electronic filings are intended to provide clear consistent guidance to practitioners and courts on the proper use of the OJD eFiling system (File and Serve). The standards are grouped into two broad categories: (1) how to properly use the system from a technical perspective to ensure acceptance of eFiled documents, and (2) compliance with Uniform Trial Court Rules (UTCR) Chapter 21 or ORCP 9E.

These standards will help educate eFilers on the correct usage of File and Serve to provide them with a high quality experience, support consistent statewide messages to accompany returned electronic filings with instructions on how to cure the error, and allow the Oregon Judicial Department (OJD) and eFilers to achieve the full benefits of an electronic filing system.

The policy and standards are available here.

New Supplemental User Guide for eCourt

OJD has also released a new Supplemental User Guide.  This document provides descriptions of the most common mistakes made by eFilers and step-by-step directions for fixing them.  It is a must-read for all lawyers and staff who use the Odyssey eFile and Serve system.

Free Training for Odyssey eFile and Serve

You can still sign up for free training Webinars with Odyssey eFile and Serve. Tyler Technologies, the vendor for Odyssey eFile and Serve, offers both recorded and live sessions here.

UTCR Amendments Coming

Next week, I will review the proposed amendments to UTCR 5.100, which affect orders and judgments.

[All Rights Reserved Beverly Michaelis 2015]