Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | Sept. 28, 2022
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
119,351 – In Re The Marriage of: Erinn A. Williams, Petitioner/Appellee, John Dustin Phillips, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. Honorable Barry Hafar, Trial Judge. John D. Phillips (Father), appeals from an order on attorney fees. Based on our review, we affirm. Opinion by DOWNING, J.; BELL, P.J., and GOREE, J., concur. Sept. 22, 2022
119,757 – Patrick Grimmett, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Joel Skip Mitchell, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Garvin County, Oklahoma. Honorable Steven C. Kendall, Trial Judge. Defendant/Appellant, Joel Skip Mitchell, appeals from the trial court’s entry of judgment against him in this defamation action filed by Plaintiff/Appellee, Patrick Grimmett. Mitchell also appeals from two trial court orders. Plaintiff sued Mitchell and his business, Forum Consulting Group LLC, for making numerous false and malicious statements about him. Mitchell, a non-lawyer, represented himself. His attempt to represent Forum was prohibited by the trial court. A $4,000,000.00 judgment against Forum has become final and is not encompassed in this appeal. Mitchell filed motions for the trial court to recuse, but the motions were denied on the ground Mitchell failed to follow District Court Rule 15. Mitchell then failed to appear for hearings and the trial court granted judgment against him and awarded Plaintiff $4,000,000.00. We will not consider the first three of Mitchell’s four propositions of error, because they are not supported by citation of authority. The single case cited in Mitchell’s brief does not support his fourth proposition of error. Mitchell has failed to overcome the presumption that the trial court’s orders were correct. AFFIRMED. Opinion by BELL, P.J.; GOREE, J., and PRINCE, J., (sbd) concurs specially. Sept. 22, 2022
Division II
119,623 – Ketch, Inc., an Oklahoma corporation, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff/Appellee, vs. Royal Windows, Inc., a Texas corporation, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from an order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Cindy H. Truong, Trial Judge. Royal Windows, Inc., appeals a trial court order awarding Ketch, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, damages in the amount of $304,000 for sending unsolicited advertisements in violation of a provision of the Telephone Communication Protection Act. After review, we conclude the trial court erred in awarding damages to the post-appeal modified class without allowing Royal Windows the opportunity to prove the fax advertisements were solicited, in light of the Federal Communications Commission’s order holding that solicited faxes are not required to contain an opt-out provision. We reverse the decision and remand for further proceedings. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; BLACKWELL, J., and HIXON, J. (sitting by designation), concur. Sept. 21, 2022
Division III
120,194 – In the Matter of A.G., Child Adjudicated to be Deprived. Angela Ogden, Natural Mother, Rodney Grass, Natural Father, Respondents/Appellants, vs. The State of Oklahoma, Petitioner/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Martha Rupp Carter, Trial Judge. Appellants/Respondents Angela Ogden (Mother) and Rodney Grass (Father) are the parents (Parents) of A.G. (Child) born February 5, 2020. At birth, Child was taken into emergency custody when his umbilical cord tested positive for amphetamines. Soon thereafter, Mother and Father also tested positive for amphetamines. Child was adjudicated deprived, and an individualized service plan was entered for Parents. Upon Parents’ failure to successfully complete the service plan, a jury trial was held to determine whether their parental rights should be terminated. The jury entered a verdict terminating Parents’ rights, and Parents appeal. The dispositive issues on appeal are whether Parents’ procedural due process rights were violated by the court by permitting Mother’s attorney to withdraw leaving her unrepresented for nearly a year, by a record that is void of documentation that Parents received statutory notice of various pleadings, and by a deviation from standard judicial procedure necessitated by the COVID‑19 pandemic. We hold that permitting Mother’s attorney to withdraw was contrary to the requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act and Matter of I.T.S., 2021 OK 38, ¶23 and violated Mother’s due process rights, but that Parents’ due process rights were not otherwise violated because they have not shown prejudice. REVERSED AND REMANDED AS TO MOTHER, AND AFFIRMED AS TO FATHER. Opinion by MITCHELL, V.C.J.; PRINCE, P.J., concurs, and SWINTON, J., concurs in part and dissents in part. Sept. 23, 2022
119,040 – McClain Bank, a State Banking Corporation, formerly McClain County National Bank, Successor to Chickasaw National Bank, Plaintiff/ Appellant, vs. Phillip L. Jody, Nancy J. Loyd, Rosalie Johnson, Steven T. Love, Susan G. Cosenza, Amy L. Meenan, Shirley Murphy Chesnut, David B. Mueller, Terrence E. Murphy, Helen-Mary Murphy Schiller, Robert M. Murphy, Jr., Robert E. Mueller, Helen Louise Love, Frank Love Johnson, Russell V. Johnson, III, Norman A. Smith, Jr., Amanda J. Gauldin, Julie K. Lowery, John E. Kennedy, Jr., Dr. L. James Kennedy, Jr., Richard M. Kennedy, Sheri K. Rotolo, Thomas L. Kennedy, Karen Rayer, Janice Jones, Judy Fosbourgh, Katrina Pendleton as Successor Trustee, Wallace Love, Trent Hoilien, Ashlee Newton, Sally Joe Love Mueller, aka Pansy Love Mueller, aka Sally Love Mueller, Deceased, Shirley “Peggy” Love Murphy, Deceased, and Pauline “Polly” Love Johnson, Deceased, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from an order of the District Court of McClain County, Hon. Steven Kendall, Trial Judge. The genesis of this case goes back almost 100 years when Chickasaw National Bank went into voluntary liquidation. The dispute centers on ownership of 70 acres of mineral interests in McClain County. Plaintiff McClain Bank, a state banking corporation, formerly McClain County National Bank, appeals the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants and the trial court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to conform the pleadings to the proof. We conclude the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to Defendants or in granting Defendants’ motion to conform the pleadings, and we summarily affirm those decisions. We further conclude that any “[i]ssues raised in the Petition[s] in Error but omitted from the brief may be deemed waived” and any “[a]rgument without supporting authority will not be considered.” Okla. Sup. Court Rule 1.11(k), 12 O.S. Supp. 2020, ch. 15, app. 1. SUMMARILY AFFIRMED UNDER RULE 1.202(d) and (e). Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; BARNES, J. (sitting by designation), and HIXON, J. (sitting by designation) concur. Sept. 22, 2022
119,340 – Ray H. Potts, Individually and as Trustee of the Ray H. Potts Living Trust, and Patricia J. Potts, Individually and as Trustee of the Patricia J. Potts Living Trust, Plaintiffs/Appellants, vs. Continental Resources, Inc., and RDV Resources Properties, LLC, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from an order of the District Court of Grady County, Hon. Kory Kirkland, Trial Judge. Plaintiffs Ray H. Potts, individually and as trustee of the Ray H. Potts Living Trust, and Patricia J. Potts, individually and as trustee of the Patricia J. Potts Living Trust, appeal a trial court order sustaining the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants Continental Resources, Inc., and RDV Resources Properties, LLC, and concomitantly denying their motion for partial summary judgment. The issue before us is whether Plaintiffs reserved certain carried working interests when they sold and assigned mineral interests in certain leases to Defendants’ predecessor. Because no genuine issues of material fact remain in dispute and the trial court correctly determined Defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law, we affirm the trial court’s summary judgment. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; FISCHER, C.J. (sitting by designation), concurs, and BLACKWELL, J., concurs in result. Sept. 22, 2022
120,446 – American Fidelity Assurance Corporation, Plaintiff, vs. Jack A. Massey, Defendant/Appellant, and Curtis Ray Parsons, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from an order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Anthony L. Bonner, Jr., Trial Judge. Jack A. Massey appeals a trial court order granting Curtis Ray Parsons’ motion for summary judgment and denying his motion for summary judgment in this interpleader action filed by American Fidelity Assurance Corporation. The question in this appeal is whether the decedent effected a change in beneficiaries on her life insurance policy before her death. We find that the trial court correctly held she did not and granted Curtis’ motion for summary judgment as a matter of law. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; BLACKWELL, J., and HIXON, J. (sitting by designation), concur. Sept. 22, 2022
Division IV
120,230 – Lynette Lee, Petitioner, v. OSBI, Compsource Oklahoma Insurance Carrier, and The Workers’ Compensation Court of Existing Claims, Respondents. Appeal from the Workers’ Compensation Court of Existing Claims, Hon. Michael W. McGivern, Trial Judge. Lynette Lee seeks review of an order of a three-judge panel of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Existing Claims affirming the trial court’s order denying her request for a finding that she suffered a compensable injury to her neck. Under the applicable standard of review, we conclude the portion of the order appealed is supported by competent evidence. Therefore, we sustain. SUSTAINED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by BARNES, P.J.; FISCHER, C.J., and HIXON, J., concur. Sept. 21, 2022
119,071 – Coffey Ranch, Ltd., Plaintiff/Appellant, and The Dorris O. Coffey Revocable Trust dated April 4, 1974, William Lee Coffey and Marian Coffey Reisen, Co-Trustees, Counter-Defendant/Appellant, vs. XTO Energy, Inc., Defendant/Appellee, The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, formerly the Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, Inc., Defendant/Claimant/Appellee, and the unknown heirs, devisees and/or assigns of Lillian Coffey Kennedy, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from Order of the District Court of Love County, Hon. Gregory L. Johnson, Trial Judge. Coffey Ranch, Ltd. and The Dorris O. Coffey Revocable Trust appeal the district court’s judgment in favor of The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation and XTO Energy, Inc. in this quiet title action. The district court’s decision in this case is clear, comprehensive, well-reasoned, and fully supported by competent evidence. The district court’s findings of fact are not against the clear weight of the evidence, and its conclusions of law are correct and more than adequately explained in its decision. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the district court’s judgment pursuant to Oklahoma Supreme Court Rule 1.202(b) & (d), 12 O.S.2011, ch. 15, app. 1. SUMMARILY AFFIRMED UNDER RULE 1.202(B) & (D). Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by FISCHER, C.J., PRINCE, P.J. (Div. III), concurs specially, and BLACKWELL, J., (sitting by designation), concurs. Sept. 23, 2022
119,914 – In the Matter of: L.S., D.S., and P.S., Alleged Deprived Children. Barbara Shaw, Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Thomas C. Riesen, Trial Judge. In this termination of parental rights proceeding, Barbara Shaw (Mother) appeals from an order of the district court terminating her parental rights to her minor children. We conclude the order terminating Mother’s parental rights was based on clear and convincing evidence that she failed to correct the conditions set forth in 10A O.S. 2021 § 1-4-904(B)(14) and that termination of her rights is in the children’s best interest. Further, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mother’s motion for a continuance and in admitting certain testimony and evidence at trial. We further conclude Mother’s due process right to a fair trial was not denied. Consequently, we affirm the order of termination of parental rights. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by BARNES, P.J.; FISCHER, C.J., and HIXON, J., concur. Sept. 27, 2022