Rule 10 of the Rules for District Courts, 12 O.S. 2011, ch. 2, app. (Rule 10) "mandates that a motion must be filed in all instances, even when a party fails to make an appearance[,]" and the failure to do so constitutes "an irregularity in the proceedings" pursuant to 12 O.S. 2011 § 1031(3). Schweigert v. Schweigert , 2015 OK 20, ¶15, 348 P.3d 696. The trial court abused its discretion by failing to vacate the default judgment.

Farm Credit Bank of Wichita v. Trent , 1997 OK 70, ¶ 21, 943 P.2d 588. However, in Schweigert v. Schweigert , 2015 OK 20, ¶ 7, 348 P.3d 696, the Supreme Court instructed:Although this Court reviews a district court's denial of a motion to vacate for abuse of discretion, the order denying a motion to vacate, like a motion for a new trial, will be reversed if the district court erred with respect to an unmixed question of law.

STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶20 We review "a district court's order vacating or refusing to vacate a judgment for abuse of discretion." Schweigert v. Schweigert, 2015 OK 20, ¶ 6, 348 P.3d 696. The Schweigert Court explained:

¶10 After a hearing on December 1, 2021, the trial court took the case under advisement. On December 14, 2021, the trial court issued a memorandum opinion holding: "Pursuant to the holding in Schweigert v. Schweigert , 2015 OK 20, 348 P.3d 696, the Court finds that [James’] failure to file a motion for default and give notice to [Jessica], as required under Rule 10, was an irregularity in proceedings requiring the judgment to be vacated pursuant to 12 O.S. § 1031. As such, [James’] Motion to Dismiss Application for Contempt is moot."

Rule 10 of the Rules for District Courts, 12 O.S. 2011, ch. 2, app. (Rule 10) "mandates that a motion must be filed in all instances, even when a party fails to make an appearance[,]" and the failure to do so constitutes "an irregularity in the proceedings" pursuant to 12 O.S. 2011 §1031(3). Schweigert v. Schweigert, 2015 OK 20, ¶15, 348 P.3d 696. The trial court abused its discretion by failing to vacate the default judgment.

Okla.Dist.Ct. Rule 10. "Rule 10's requirement for filing a motion and giving notice is applicable any time a party appears before a court, whether by filing a document or physically participating in a hearing." Schweigert v. Schweigert, 2015 OK 20, ¶ 15, 348 P.3d 696, 701 (emphasis added). Failing to give notice as required by Rule 10 is an irregularity in the proceedings that affects the aggrieved party's substantial rights and is cause for vacating the district court's default judgment.

Alberta relies solely on the notice requirement in the first paragraph of Rule 10 to argue that the Decree should be vacated. Alberta cites the Supreme Court’s decisions in Schweigert v. Schweigert, 2015 OK 20, 348 P.3d 696, and Velasco v. Ruiz, 2019 OK 46, 457 P.3d 1014, in support of her contention that the Decree is void for entry without the required Rule 10 notice. ¶35

Estes v. ConocoPhillips Co., 2008 OK 21, ¶ 10, 184 P.3d 518, 523-524 ("Administrative rules, like statutes, are to be given a sensible construction."). Cf. Schweigert v. Schweigert, 2015 OK 20, ¶15, 348 P.3d 696 (similar to construction of an administrative rule, when construing a rule for District Courts we use the plain meaning of the provision, and use a sensible construction which gives effect to unambiguous language). ¶50 The first provision of Chapter 1, Subchapter 5, is 75-1-5-1, "Individual Proceedings," states that a provision of the OAPA "governs individual proceedings by Office of the Attorney General for revocation, denial, suspension and non-renewal of certification or for reprimand of certified facilities."

State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Mothershed, 2011 OK 84, ¶ 51, 264 P.3d 1197, 1216 (“A trial panel functions as this Court's hearing examiner and a procedural “conduit” for the record and legal arguments making the case ready for this Court's original de novo review of the case.”).Schweigert v. Schweigert, 2015 OK 20, ¶ 12, 348 P.3d 696, 700.State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Mothershed, 2011 OK 84, ¶ 69, 264 P.3d 1197, 1223 (“... this Court reviews the trial panel report, evidence submitted to the trial panel, stipulations, and pleadings filed in a disciplinary proceeding as well as a review of the merits of the disciplinary charges against a respondent even though he or she fails to file a brief in this Court.”).

¶34 Alberta relies solely on the notice requirement in the first paragraph of Rule 10 to argue that the Decree should be vacated. Alberta cites the Supreme Court's decisions in Schweigert v. Schweigert, 2015 OK 20, 348 P.3d 696, and Velasco v. Ruiz, 2019 OK 46, 457 P.3d 1014, in support of her contention that the Decree is void for entry without the required Rule 10 notice.