Short answer. Yes, but only for motions made in open court or in the course of a hearing or trial — those should be resolved immediately, after the adverse party is given the chance to argue opposition. All other motions must generally be in writing before the court will consider them.

What the law says

All motions shall be in writing except those made in open court or in the course of a hearing or trial. A motion made in open court or in the course of a hearing or trial should immediately be resolved in open court, after the adverse party is given the opportunity to argue his or her opposition thereto.

Rule 15, Section 2 — Motions must be in writing. Read the full provision →

The general rule and its exception

The starting point under this rule is that all motions must be in writing as a default requirement. The rule then carves out one specific exception for motions made in open court, or in the course of a hearing or trial that is already underway — those particular motions may be made orally instead, without needing to be reduced to writing first.

Immediate resolution for oral motions

An oral motion made in open court, or during a hearing or trial, is not meant to simply linger unresolved afterward; the rule directs that it should immediately be resolved right there in open court. This keeps oral motions tightly tied to the specific proceeding during which they actually arose, rather than letting them become separate pending matters that get taken up and decided at some later date.

The adverse party still gets a say

Even though an oral motion may end up being resolved right away on the spot, the adverse party is not simply bypassed or ignored in that process. The rule expressly requires that the adverse party first be given a genuine opportunity to argue his or her opposition to the motion before the court rules, preserving basic procedural fairness even within the compressed timeframe of an in-court oral ruling.

When facts outside the record are involved

Where a particular motion is based on facts that do not already appear on the record, the court is not limited to hearing simple oral argument alone — it may instead choose to hear the matter on affidavits or depositions presented by the respective parties, or it may direct that the matter be heard wholly or partly on oral testimony or depositions, giving the court real flexibility in resolving fact-based motions properly. This flexibility recognizes that not every motion raised during a hearing can be fairly resolved on argument alone, particularly where the parties dispute what actually happened outside the courtroom.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.