Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | June 7, 2023
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
Division II
119,770 – In re the Marriage of: Carey Hennig, Petitioner/Appellant, v. James Hennig, Respondent/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Barry L. Hafar, Trial Judge. Petitioner (Mother) appeals from an order of the district court terminating the parties’ joint custody of their minor children and awarding sole custody to Mother. Contrary to Mother’s requests, the court awarded Respondent (Father) unsupervised visitation, and the court found Father not guilty of indirect contempt of court. Mother also appeals from an order of the district court denying her application for attorney fees and costs. Based on our review, we affirm the district court’s award of unsupervised visitation to Father and its finding that Father is not guilty of indirect contempt of court. We also affirm the order denying Mother’s application for attorney fees and costs. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by BARNES, V.C.J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and HIXON, J., concur. June 2, 2023
Division III
120,270 – Jaya Richardson, an individual, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Russell A. Richardson, an individual; GBR Properties, inc., an Oklahoma Corporation; and The Russell A. Richardson Revocable Trust Dated 10/1/2015, Defendants/Appellants. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Caroline Wall, Trial Judge. Defendant/Appellant Russell Richardson (Rusty) is appealed a 5.5 million dollar jury verdict entered against him in favor of his former wife Plaintiff/Appellee Jaya Richardson (Jaya). In their divorce, Jaya was awarded several limited partnership interests. Rather than transferring the LP interests to her, Rusty sold his interests to an entity in which he had a 50% ownership interest. Next, he repurchased the limited partnership interests through a newly created trust. He offered Jaya the value of the LP interests instead. Jaya brought a lawsuit against Rusty in Tulsa County District Court including claims for conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, interference with prospective economic advantage and conspiracy. Following a jury trial, judgment was entered in favor of Jaya. She was awarded $2,757,227 in actual damages and a like amount in punitive damages. On appeal, Rusty argues the trial court erred in exercising jurisdiction over him because the divorce court retained exclusive jurisdiction to enforce its judgment, and an execution of the divorce decree would have provided Jaya with adequate post‑judgment relief. We find the trial court properly exercised jurisdiction, and Jaya’s tort claims were necessary for new and additional relief beyond the relief an execution of the divorce decree could provide. We further find Jaya’s tort claims of conversion and breach of fiduciary duty were not supported by the evidence and law. The other claims were maintainable, and supported by the evidence. The jury’s verdicts are AFFIRMED. Opinion by MITCHELL, C.J.; BELL, J., concurs and PRINCE, P.J., dissents. May 31, 2023
120,345 – Wytex Production Corporation, and Wytex Royalty, LLC, Plaintiffs/Appellants. V. Joe D. Davis Trust, Tag Team Resources, LLC, Davis Operating Company, XTO Energy, INC., Petroquest Energy, LLC, Semcap, LLC, BNP Paribas, JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA, TMN Resources, LLC, Alan R. Staab, HW Allen Co., and The Stephen F. Dale and Beverly R. Dale Living Trust, Stephen F. Dale and Beverly R. Dale, Trustees, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Pittsburgh County, Oklahoma. Honorable Mike Hogan, Trial Judge. Plaintiffs/Appellants, Wytex Production Corporation and Wytex Royalty, LLC (collectively referred to herein as “Wytex”), appeal an Order Sustaining Motion for Directed Verdict. Defendants/Appellees, the Joe D. Davis Trust and Davis Operating Company (collectively referred to as “Davis”), were granted partial relief in advance of the trial pursuant to a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment entered on March 29, 2016, limiting the damage claims to five years prior to the filing of the case. The matter proceeded to trial in August, 2017, under a Pretrial Conference Order entered on March 22, 2017. At the conclusion of the case‑in‑chief by Wytex, Davis moved for a directed verdict. Wytex then announced that it only sought a quiet title claim against Davis, which then caused Davis to disclaim any interest in the subject wells. The trial court announced that a directed verdict was granted to Davis and also ordered that Davis was dismissed from the case. A final Journal Entry was entered on March 29, 2018, which, on its face, did not address the mid‑trial relief granted to Davis. Eight days later, Davis filed a Motion seeking an Order by the trial court to memorialize the directed verdict. That Motion was sustained on May 14, 2018. The Order sustaining the Motion filed by Davis, however, was not a final, appealable order. Therefore, the trial court entered a Final Order approximately four years later (on March 29, 2022) that is the subject of this appeal. Wytex claims that Davis abandoned the Motion for Directed Verdict during trial and, in addition, that the trial court had no jurisdiction to enter the Order Sustaining Motion for Directed Verdict. Wytex also asserts that Davis delayed obtaining the Order to such an extent that the equitable doctrine of laches should apply and that the Order should be reversed. We find that Davis did not abandon the Motion for Directed Verdict, that the trial court did have jurisdiction to enter the Order Sustaining Motion for Directed Verdict, and that laches does not apply to the facts of this case. The Order entered by the trial court, therefore, is AFFIRMED. Opinion by PRINCE, P.J.; MITCHELL, C.J., and BELL, J., concur. May 31, 2023
120,614 – William Scott Bedford, Ray H. Pace and Sondra N. Pace, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. Mary Nowlin, Defendant/Appellant, The Helen and Mary Nowlin Irrevocable Common Law Trust, Defendant. Appeal from the District Court of Marshall County, Oklahoma. Honorable Wallace Coppedge, Trial Judge. Mary Nowlin filed documents in the land records of Marshall County asserting interests in property titled in the names of William Bedford, Ray Pace, and Sondra Pace. Bedford and Pace filed a quiet title action in Marshall County District Court against Mary Nowlin asserting ownership and possession of the property at issue. Nowlin removed the case to federal court which dismissed with prejudice Nowlin’s counterclaims and defenses as a sanction for her failure to comply with the federal court’s orders and rules. The case was remanded to Marshall County which gave preclusive effect to the federal court’s order dismissing Nowlin’s counterclaims and defenses, then adjudicated the merits of Bedford and Paces’ quiet title action in favor of Bedford and Pace. Nowlin moved for a new trial which the court denied. Following a review of the record and applicable law, we AFFIRM the court’s grant of Bedford and Paces’ motion for summary judgment giving preclusive effect to the federal court’s order, the adjudication on the merits of the quiet title action in favor of Bedford and Pace, and the denial of Nowlin’s motion for new trial. Opinion by MITCHELL, C.J.; PRINCE, P.J., and BELL, J., concur. May 31, 2023
120,635 – In the Matter of: J.H., Alleged Deprived Child, Summer Shadowen, Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Charles Kevin Morrison, Trial Judge. In this action to terminate parental rights, Appellant, Summer Shadowen, the biological Mother, appeals from the trial court’s order entered upon a jury verdict terminating her parental rights to J.H., born January 5, 2019, an adjudicated deprived child. Mother’s parental rights were terminated, pursuant to 10A O.S. 2021 §1‑4‑904(B)(5) for Mother’s failure to correct the conditions of substance abuse, domestic violence, mental health instability, threat of harm and failure to provide a safe and/or sanitary home. Mother’s rights were also terminated pursuant to §1‑4‑904(B)(17) because J.H. was younger than four (4) years of age at the time of placement and has been in foster care for at least six (6) of the twelve (12) months preceding the filing of the petition to terminate and the child cannot be safely returned to the home. The jury and the court also found by clear and convincing evidence that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in J.H.’s best interest. After reviewing the record, we AFFIRM. Opinion by BELL, J.; MITCHELL, C.J., and PRINCE, P.J., concur. May 31, 2023
120,826 – In the Matter of the Adoption of M.N.M., a minor child, Kayla Main, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Paul Hamilton and Marcheeta Hamilton, Respondents/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Ottawa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Barry V. Denney, Trial Judge. Biological mother, Petitioner/Appellant, Kayla Main, appeals an Order allowing an adoption to proceed without her consent due to her failure to provide support and her failure to establish and/or maintain a substantial relationship with her minor child, M.N.M. The minor child was born on October 13, 2020, and removed from Ms. Main’s custody at that time. The adoptive parents, Respondents/Appellees, Paul Hamilton and Marcheeta Hamilton, have provided care for the child since birth. Ms. Main was incarcerated during February, 2021, and remained incarcerated through the time of trial. Ms. Main provided no support for the child since birth, visited the child in person on one occasion, and had telephone visits with the child but did not establish or maintain a substantial and positive relationship with the child. We have reviewed the record and applicable law and find that the Order Adjudicating Child Eligible for Adoption Without Consent of Mother should be AFFIRMED. Opinion by PRINCE, P.J.; MITCHELL, C.J., and BELL, J., concur. May 31, 2023
Division IV
120,431 – In the Matter of the Adoption of A.J.B., a minor child: Hannah and William Barnes, the mother and stepfather of the minor child AJB, appeal a decision of the district court denying that AJB was eligible to be adopted without the consent of the child’s father, Zachary Barbee. On review, we find that the trial court erred in finding that the Barneses had failed to meet their burden under the relevant statutes to show AJB was eligible for adoption without consent. Thus, we vacate the order appealed and remand for further proceedings, which must include allowing Mr. Barbee the opportunity to put on any defense. William E. Barnes and Hannah A. Barnes, husband and wife, Appellants, vs. Zachary Wayne Barbee, Appellee. Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Bryan County, Hon. Trial Judge. VACATED AND REMANDED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV by BLACKWELL, P.J.; FISCHER, J., concurs, and WISEMAN, J. (sitting by designation), concurs in part and dissents in part. June 2, 2023