Questions concerning statutory interpretation are subject to this Court's de novo review. Christian v. Christian, 2018 OK 91, ¶ 5, 434 P.3d 941, 942. In exercising de novo review, "this court possesses plenary, independent, and non-deferential authority to examine the issues presented."

Questions concerning statutory interpretation are subject to this Court's de novo review. Christian v. Christian, 2018 OK 91, ¶ 6, 434 P.3d 941, 942. In exercising de novo review, "this court possesses plenary, independent, and non-deferential authority to examine the issues presented."

We will only employ rules of statutory construction when legislative intent cannot be ascertained (e.g., in cases of ambiguity). Christian v. Christian, 2018 OK 91, ¶ 5, 434 P.3d 941, 942. Our test for determining the ambiguity of a statute depends on whether its language is susceptible to more than one meaning.

We find no reversible error and affirm the decision of the trial court. Pursuant to 12 O.S.2011, § 2006 (A)(1) and our decision in Christian v. Christian, 2018 OK 91, ¶¶ 7-8, 434 P.3d 941, 943-44, Husband's motion was filed within ten days (excluding weekends) of the appealable order; thus, the time limit to initiate his appeal was tolled until disposition of his post-trial motion. Standard of Review

Pursuant to 12 O.S.2011, § 2006(A)(1) and our decision in Christian v. Christian, 2018 OK 91, ¶¶ 7-8, 434 P.3d 941, 943-44, Husband's motion was filed within ten days (excluding weekends) of the appealable order; thus, the time limit to initiate his appeal was tolled until disposition of his post-trial motion. Standard of Review

Such an enquiry involves a question of law. Issues of construction pose a legal query, which we review using a de novo standard. Christian v. Christian, 2018 OK 91 , ¶ 6, 434 P.3d 941 , 942. In exercising de novo review, "this court possesses plenary, independent, and non-deferential authority to examine the issues presented."

Braitsch v. City of Tulsa , 2018 OK 100, ¶ 2, 436 P.3d 14, 17. See also Christian v. Christian , 2018 OK 91, ¶ 5, 434 P.3d 941, 942 ("when this Court is faced with a question of statutory interpretation, we apply a de novo standard of review").Boyle v. ASAP Energy, Inc. , 2017 OK 82, ¶ 7, 408 P.3d 183, 187-188 ; Nelson v. Enid Medical Associates , 2016 OK 69, 376 P.3d 212, 216.

Braitsch v. City of Tulsa , 2018 OK 100, ¶ 2, 436 P.3d 14,17. See also Christian v. Christian , 2018 OK 91, ¶ 5, 434 P.3d 941, 942 ("when this Court is faced with a question of statutory interpretation, we apply a de novo standard of review").In re City of Durant , 2002 OK 52, ¶ 2, 50 P.3d 218, 219-220.

Chandler , 747 P.2d at 942, quoting Abraham , 226 P. at 47.Reeds v. Walker , 2006 OK 43, ¶ 10, 157 P.3d 100, 107 ("when there are no contested jurisdictional facts, the question of subject matter jurisdiction is purely one of law which we review de novo "); Christian v. Christian , 2018 OK 91, ¶ 5, 434 P.3d 941, 942 ("when this Court is faced with a question of statutory interpretation, we apply a de novo standard of review").De novo , clear-abuse-of-discretion, and clearly-erroneous have been viewed as different standards.

When a question of statutory interpretation is involved, this Court applies a de novo standard of review. Christian v. Christian , 2018 OK 91, ¶5, 434 P.3d 941, 942. The "primary goal is to determine legislative intent through the ‘plain and ordinary meaning’ of the statutory language."