*401ORDER
HARGRAVE, Chief Justice.Appellee’s motion to dismiss, contained in its response to petition in error, is granted in part, denied in part. Under the Rules of Appellate Procedure in Civil Cases, 12 O.S.1981, Ch. 15, App. 2, Rule 1.11, appellant could have affected a timely appeal by either filing a petition in error within thirty days of the trial court’s July 25, 1989 denial of a motion for new trial on the merits of the judgment, or could have waited until after the trial court’s resolution of a reserved attorney fee issue on September 20, 1989, by the filing within thirty days of a new or amended petition in error. Here, the petition in error was filed October 2, 1989, thus a timely appeal on the merits of the judgment of July 25, 1989. Rule 1.11(c).
Appellant’s motion for new trial which was filed on September 29, 1989, and overruled by the trial court on October 10, 1989, was directed solely at the attorney fee issue and was not related or affected by the timely petition in error on the judgment on the merits. The motion for new trial on the attorney fee having been overruled on October 23, 1989, without the filing of a subsequent new or amended petition in error within thirty days, renders the attorney fee issue as untimely presented. Motion to dismiss as to attorney fee issue is granted. Rule 1.11(d).
DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT.
HODGES, LAVENDER, DOOLIN, ALMA WILSON, KAUGER and SUMMERS, JJ., concur. OPALA, V.C.J., and SIMMS, J., dissent.