Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | Nov. 16, 2022
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
Division II
120,314 – Shayla Cline and Sandra Brocar, Plaintiffs/Appellants, vs. Lenny Ray Pencha, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Major County, Hon. Tim Haworth, Trial Judge. Shayla Cline and Sandra Brocar appeal the summary judgment of the district court, which found that the defendant, Ray Pecha, did not breach any duty to her during the events leading up to Ms. Cline injuring her hand during a cattle round-up. We find it clear as a matter of law, however, that she was working as an independent contractor and that, pursuant to this record, Mr. Pecha did not breach any duty towards Ms. Cline as a business invitee. As such, we affirm the decision of the district court. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II by BLACKWELL, J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and HIXON, J. (sitting by designation), concur. Nov. 14, 2022
120,077 – Linda Middlebrook, Petitioner, vs. Multiple Injury Trust Fund and The Oklahoma Workers’ Compensation Court, Respondents. Linda Middlebrook appeals the rejection of her claim against the Multiple Injury Trust Fund and the finding that she was not permanently totally disabled as a result of cumulative disability encompassing some 78 percent of her body. On review, we find the decision of the court is not against the clear weight of the evidence and we affirm. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II by BLACKWELL, J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and BARNES, J., concur. Nov. 14, 2022
Division III
119,241 – Dennis Ray Allen, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Town of Boynton, Oklahoma, and Candace Lang, Defendants/Appellants, and Willie G. Hopkins, Defendant. Appeal from the District Court of Muskogee County, Oklahoma. Honorable Norman D. Thygesen, Trial Judge. Defendant/Appellant Town of Boynton, Oklahoma, appeals from a judgment entered against it following a jury trial on Plaintiff/Appellee Dennis Ray Allen’s claims against Town for negligent hiring and supervision of Defendants Candace Lang and Willie G. Hopkins, who Allen alleged assaulted him at Town’s office. The trial court previously entered default judgment finding Lang and Hopkins liable. Lang appeals the damages awarded against her. We find no reversible error in the jury instructions or admission of evidence. Competent evidence supports the judgment and we AFFIRM. Opinion by SWINTON, J.; MITCHELL, V.C.J., and PRINCE, P.J., concur. Nov. 11, 2022
120,188 – Scott Wood, an individual, Karen Tearl, an individual, and Cindy Woessner, an individual, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Wayne Wood, as Trustee of the Walter Lee Wood and Marcella Mae Wood Revocable Living Trust dated August 25, 2015, Defendants/Appellees, and Rozella Yvonne Rosson, Eric Eugene Wood, and Orville Lee Wood, Nominal Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Creek County, Oklahoma. Honorable Douglas W. Golden, Trial Judge. The issue in this case is whether the beneficiaries of a living trust agreement are subject to the arbitration clause in the trust agreement, thereby forcing them to their dispute with the trustee. The Plaintiffs/Appellants here, Scott Wood, Karen Tearl, and Cindy Woessner (collectively the “Appellants”) appeal an order of the trial court compelling arbitration. They are three of the seven beneficiaries of their parents’ testamentary living trust and filed a breach of trust action against the trustee, Wayne Wood, for allegedly failing to account for trust property and failing to distribute assets pursuant to the trust agreement. Trustee moved the trial court to dismiss Beneficiaries’ petition, or in the alternative, order the matter to arbitration under the terms of the trust agreement. The trial court granted that motion and this timely appeal followed. Subsequent to the filing of Appellants’ Brief‑in‑chief, the Trustee filed a two page document, in which he acknowledges “that the trial court erred by compelling Appellants to arbitrate their disputes, as Appellants are not parties to the underlying trust agreement . . . [and] that the authorities cited by . . . [them] are controlling on this issue.” The Trustee did not file an Answer Brief. Based on our independent analysis and the Trustees confession of the merits of this appeal, we hold that Appellants’ allegations of fraud and malfeasance were plead with sufficient particularity to state a fraud claim for relief and, thus, take all of their claims outside the scope of the arbitration clause. Thus, we REVERSE the order of the trial court and REMAND the case for further proceedings. Opinion by PRINCE, P.J.; MITCHELL, V.C.J., and SWINTON, J., concur. Nov. 11, 2022
120,296 – Kristy Parish, Individually, and as mother and next friend of M.B., and D.B., minor children, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Manuel Jimenez, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Texas County, Oklahoma. Honorable Jon K. Parsley, Trial Judge. The Plaintiff/Appellant, Kristy Parish, sought damages in this case against her former landlord for various violations of the Oklahoma Residential Landlord Tenant Act, the federal Fair Housing Act and common law negligence. Following the entry of a default judgment in her favor, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on January 26, 2022, to determine the amount of her damages. The Defendant/Appellee, Manuel Jimenez, appeared at the evidentiary hearing, pro se. At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, the trial court announced the amount of total damages to Parish and her children, would be $2,700.00. While the trial court did not announce any detailed findings on the record at the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, the Journal Entry of Default Judgment entered on March 15, 2022, was exceedingly detailed, enumerating a Statement of Facts and a Statement of the Law, and a section entitled Application of Law to Facts. The testimony at trial demonstrated the existence of competent evidence for all of the damages awarded by the trial court. The trial court did not, however, award damages for some of the claims for which it identified and determined in its Journal Entry of Default that had, in fact, been established. More specifically, we find that it was error for the trial court to fail to grant relief under 41 O.S. §§ 120 & 121 (i.e., the habitability claims), when it clearly found that those sections had been violated. Additionally, the actual damages awarded, under both the Fair Housing Act and the common law negligence claims, were inadequate and beyond all measure unreasonable and outrageous, especially considering that the trial court determined that Parish and her two children each suffered great emotional distress due to their hospitalization and need for subsequent treatment. The Journal Entry of Default Judgment is undisturbed in all other respects. Thus, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment in part and REVERSE the judgment in part. Opinion by PRINCE, P.J.; MITCHELL, V.C.J., and SWINTON, J., concur. Nov. 11, 2022
120,430 – Multiple Injury Trust Fund, Petitioner, v. Susan Smith and The Workers’ Compensation Court of Existing Claims, Respondents. Proceeding to review an order of the Workers’ Compensation Commission en Banc. Petitioner Multiple Injury Trust Fund (MITF) appeals from an order of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Existing Claims en Banc panel reversing the order of the trial court and awarding permanent total disability (PTD) benefits to Claimant/Respondent Susan Smith based on a combination of back injuries and Claimant’s alleged obvious and apparent injury to the left arm. MITF argues that Claimant’s injuries are not legally combinable, that there was insufficient evidence to deviate from the independent medical examiner’s opinion, and that Claimant is not permanently and totally disabled from her combined injuries. In response, Claimant argues that her obvious and apparent left arm disability is combinable with her prior and most recent injury, rendering her permanently and totally disabled, and that MITF failed to establish that the order on appeal was against the clear weight of the evidence or contrary to law. We SUSTAIN the panel’s order. Opinion by SWINTON, J.; MITCHELL, V.C.J., and PRINCE, P.J., concur. Nov. 11, 2022
120,480 – In the Matter of the Adoption of L.E.S., L.R.C., C.N.C., Minor Children, Alexandra Schultz, Appellant, v. Barry C. Schultz and Amy K. Hart-Schultz, Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Washington County, Oklahoma. Honorable Russell Vaclaw, Trial Judge. Appellees, Barry C. Shultz and Amy K. Hart‑Schultz (“Adoptive Parents”), filed a Petition for Adoption. Adoptive Parents sought to adopt three children without the consent of Appellant, Alexandra Schultz (“Natural Mother”), due to Natural Mother’s failure to support the children in substantial compliance with a child support order. The trial court granted Adoptive Parents’ application and determined that the adoption could proceed without Natural Mother’s consent. Natural Mother commenced this appeal and claims that Adoptive Parents did not meet their burden to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that her failure to provide support was willful. After a review of the record and applicable law, we find that Adoptive Parents satisfied their burden of proof and AFFIRM the Order Determining Biological/Natural Mother’s Consent to this Adoption is Not Necessary. The trial court’s finding that the Natural Mother willfully failed to pay any child support payments during the relevant 14 month period is buttressed by the fact that she had not, at any time, paid any child support payments, despite having been ordered to do so approximately 3 ½ years prior to the initiation of this action. Moreover, when confronted about her violation of the child support order, Natural Mother became angry and defiant on multiple occasions, demonstrating a purposeful attitude with respect to the non‑payment of child‑support. Opinion by PRINCE, P.J.; MITCHELL, V.C.J., and SWINTON, J., concur. Nov. 11, 2022
Division IV
119,704 – Kchao & Kchao Hospitality, LLC, d/b/a Whispering Pines Inn Bed & Breakfast, Rany Kchao and Thavory Kchao, Plaintiffs/Appellants, vs. Beverly Renee Marlow, At Toem and Paula Sullivan, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Cleveland County, Hon. Jeff Virgin, Trial Judge. Kchao and Kchao Hospitality, LLC, d/b/a Whispering Pines Inn Bed and Breakfast, Rany Kchao; and Thavory Kchao (collectively “the Kchaoses”) appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Beverly Renee Marlow and At Toem and the order granting summary judgment to Paula Sullivan (collectively “Defendants”). The primary issue is whether the district court properly granted summary judgment to Defendants based on the absolute privilege applicable to statements made preliminary to quasi-judicial or judicial proceedings. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we find the trial court properly granted summary judgment to Marlow on the basis of absolute privilege and affirm the order granting her summary judgment. As for Toem, we find she failed to establish the absolute privilege applied to her alleged statements on this record. However, we affirm the order to the extent it granted her summary judgment on the intentional infliction of emotional distress theory of recovery on other grounds. We reverse the order to the extent the court granted her summary judgment on the tortious interference of business relations theory of recovery. We also find Sullivan failed to establish she was entitled to summary judgment on the basis of absolute privilege, particularly where the Kchaoses were not allowed to depose her before judgment was granted. Thus, we reverse the order granting her summary judgment and remand the case to the district court for proceedings consistent with our Opinion. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, J.; FISCHER, C.J., and BARNES, P.J., concur. Nov. 14, 2022
120,075 (Consol. with Case No. 120,084) – In the Matter of L.G., III, E.G. and N.G., Deprived Children: Elizabeth Williams, Appellant, and Lonnie Griffith, Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Cassandra M. Williams, Trial Judge. In this termination of parental rights proceeding in which the Indian Child Welfare Act applies, Elizabeth Williams (Mother) and Lonnie Griffith (Father) (collectively, Parents) appeal from an order entered upon a jury verdict terminating their parental rights to their three minor children. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we conclude State met its required burden of proof through clear and convincing evidence of time spent in foster care and Parents’ failure to correct the conditions that led to adjudication, that active efforts were made, and that termination of Parents’ parental rights is in the children’s best interest. We further conclude State presented evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that returning the children to the custody of Mother or Father would likely result in severe emotional or physical damage to the children. We also conclude Mother’s due process right to the effective assistance of counsel was not violated. Accordingly, we affirm the court’s orders terminating Parents’ parental rights. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by BARNES, P.J.; FISCHER, C.J., and HIXON, J., concur. Nov. 9, 2022