Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | March 13, 2024

March 12, 2024

Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals

Division I

121,145 – Tanya Tyson, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Quiktrip Corporation, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable William LaFortune, Trial Judge. Plaintiff/Appellant Tanya Tyson appeals from the trial court’s order denying her motion to vacate a default judgment entered in favor of Defendant/Appellee QuikTrip Corporation. Pursuant to District Court Rule 5(J)(4), the trial court entered default after Tyson failed to appear at the scheduling conference. Tyson was given the notice required by statute. Tyson admittedly neglected to inquire about the status of her case for nearly a year and failed to update her mailing address. We find no abuse of discretion and affirm. Opinion by SWINTON, P.J.; BELL, V.C.J., and PRINCE, J., concur. March 7, 2024

121,266 – Western Equipment, LLC and Old Glory Insurance Co., Respondents/Appellants, v. James Lindsey and the Workers’ Compensation Commission, Claimant/Appellee. Proceeding to Review an Order of the Workers’ Compensation Commission. Respondents/Appellants, Western Equipment, LLC (Employer), and Old Glory Insurance Co., seek review of the Workers’ Compensation Commission’s (Commission) order affirming an Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) decision finding that Claimant/Appellee, James Lindsey, timely filed his CC-Form-3 according to 85A O.S. Supp. 2019 §69(A)(1). Employer admits Claimant’s injury arose out of and in the course and scope of Claimant’s employment but argues that the payment of medical expenses does not constitute a “benefit” within the scope of §69(A)(1). We disagree and find that the payment of medical expenses is a “benefit” within the scope of §69(A)(1). Because the record contains competent evidence to support the Commission’s findings, the order of the Commission is AFFIRMED. Opinion by BELL, V.C.J., SWINTON, P.J., and PRINCE, J., concur. March 7, 2024

121,610 – In the Matter of J.O., Deprived child. Albert Parker, Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Charles Kevin Morrison, Trial Judge. Appellant, Albert Parker, appeals an Order Terminating Parental Rights ICWA Compliant to his minor child, J.O. (“Child”). Mr. Parker’s rights were terminated on the ground that he is incarcerated, and that continuation of parental rights would harm the child. Mr. Parker argues that he was unable to meaningfully participate in the jury trial because a failure occurred in the video feed from the prison to the courtroom, preventing him from being present for about one-half of the trial, that the State of Oklahoma failed to prove that active efforts had failed prior to termination, and that the State failed to prove that continued custody by him would result in serious physical or emotional damage. We have canvassed the record and conclude that the trial court committed error when it failed to allow Mr. Parker to be present for the entire trial. In addition, the trial court potentially placed a higher burden upon the State than required by law when it applied the Indian Child Welfare Act (“ICWA”) requirements set forth in 25 U.S.C. § 1912(d) and § 1912(f). We, therefore, REVERSE the Order Terminating Parental Rights, and the matter is REMANDED for a new trial consistent with this Opinion. Opinion by PRINCE, J.; BELL, V.C.J., and SWINTON, J., concur. March 7, 2024

121,644 – Arturo Chico, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Christopher Joseph Vietti, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Daman Cantrell, Trial Judge. Plaintiff/Appellant Arturo Chico appeals from the trial court’s order denying his motion to reconsider summary judgment granted in favor of Defendant/Appellee Christopher Joseph Vietti. The summary judgment record shows no dispute of the facts material to Chico’s claims. Vietti was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider and we therefore affirm. Opinion by SWINTON, P.J.; BELL, V.C.J., and PRINCE, J., concur. March 7, 2024

Division II

120,834 (Consolidated with Case No. 120,883) – In the Matter of D.C., an Alleged Deprived Child, Lilly Hart and Dustin Coggins, Plaintiffs/Appellants, vs. State of Oklahoma, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Okfuskee County, Hon. Maxey P. Reilly, Trial Judge. Lilly Hart (Mother) and Dustin Coggins (Father) appeal trial court orders on jury verdicts terminating their parental rights to their minor child, DC. We are asked to review whether the State of Oklahoma proved both the statutory ground for termination by clear and convincing evidence and that termination of Father’s and Mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. We find that State met its burden and we affirm the trial court’s orders. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; BARNES, C.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. March 7, 2024

120,407 – In the matter of T.W., E.W., H.W. and A.W., deprived children: Annemarie Williams, Appellant, vs. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from Order of District Court of Seminole County, Hon. Christopher G. Anderson, trial judge. Appellant Annemarie Williams (Mother) appeals the orders of the district court finding that active efforts were made by the State to provide services and programs designed to prevent the breakup of this Indian family and memorializing the jury’s verdicts terminating her parental rights to her four children. We find the appellate record supports the jury’s determination that Mother failed to correct the conditions that led to the children’s adjudication; that there existed a substantial erosion of the relationship between Mother and each child; that each child was in foster care for 6 of the 12 months preceding the motion to terminate parental rights and that it was unsafe for the children to return to Mother’s home. We further find clear and convincing evidence supports the jury’s determination that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the best interest of the children. We find that the evidence supports the jury’s conclusion that, beyond a reasonable doubt, continued custody by Mother would likely result in serious emotional or physical damage to the children. Finally, we find that the record demonstrates that the State met its burden of proof to demonstrate active efforts to reunite Mother and the children by clear and convincing evidence. The Decree terminating Mother’s parental rights is affirmed. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by FISCHER, J.; BARNES, C.J., and WISEMAN, P.J., concur. March 11, 2024

Division III

120,658 – In the Matter of R.K.M., III, alleged deprived child: Casey Leigh Dixon, Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma and Department of Human Services, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Creek County, Oklahoma. Honorable Laura Farris, Trial Judge. Casey Leigh Dixon appeals an order terminating her parental rights to R.K.M. III on grounds she failed to correct the conditions that led to Child’s deprived adjudication, and Child was in foster care beyond the statutory period and could not be safely returned home. The order is AFFIRMED. Opinion by GOREE, J.; MITCHELL, P.J., and DOWNING, J., concur. March 8, 2024

121,127 – In the Matter of D.C., A.W., A.W., A.W., A.W., A.W., Deprived Children: Brittany Carter and Jemaure Sango, Respondents/Appellants, v. State of Oklahoma, Petitioner/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Theresa Dreiling, Trial Judge. This appeal was brought by parents who challenge the termination of their parental rights following a jury trial. The father’s parental rights were terminated pursuant to 10A O.S. 2021 §1-4-904(B)(12)(incarceration). We find no error in his unbriefed allegations of error that the State of Oklahoma failed to meet its burden of proof with clear and convincing evidence, the jury instructions were deficient, and the order lacks the necessary statutory language and findings to terminate his parental rights. The Mother’s parental rights were terminated pursuant to 10A O.S. 2021 §1-4-904(B)(5)(failure to correct conditions) and §1-4-904(B)(14)(previous adjudication and failure to correct conditions). We find no reversible error in the mother’s allegations of error that the State of Oklahoma failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that termination was in the best interests of the children, and the court abused its discretion in allowing testimony at trial of another child’s death. The orders of the trial court are affirmed, but the order terminating the mother’s parental rights is remanded with instructions to make a best interests finding consistent with the jury’s verdicts. Opinion by MITCHELL, P.J.; GOREE, J., and DOWNING, J., concur. March 8, 2024

Division IV

120,744 – In the Matter of D.D. and R.D., Deprived Children, Jenny Deverna, Appellant, vs. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Thomas Riesen, Trial Judge. Jenny Deverna, the biological mother of minor children, D.D. and R.D. (Mother), seeks review of the district court’s orders terminating her parental rights as to both D.D. and R.D. based upon Mother’s failure to correct the conditions which lead to the children being adjudicated deprived. It is undisputed that D.D. is an Indian Child and the Oklahoma Indian Child Welfare Act, 10 O.S. Supp. 2019 §§ 40-40.9, and the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C.A. §§ 1901-1963, apply. R.D. is not an Indian child. After reviewing the record and applicable law, we find the district court did not err in terminating the parental rights of Mother. We conclude, upon review of the record, that the district court properly found sufficient evidence to support its decision to terminate Mother’s parental rights as to D.D. and R.D. The orders of the district court terminating Mother’s parental rights to D.D. and R.D. are affirmed. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HUBER, P.J.; HIXON, J., and BLACKWELL, J., concur. March 7, 2024

121,469 – Patty Howard and Alexis Howard, Plaintiffs/Appellants, vs. The Barrington Homeowners Association, Inc., an Oklahoma Non-Profit Corporation; Stanley Karber, an individual; Aldo Rodriguez, an individual; David Silver, an individual; and Karla Moran, an individual, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Anthony L. Bonner, Jr., Trial Judge. Plaintiffs Patty Howard and Alexis Howard appeal the trial court’s order granting Defendants The Barrington Homeowners Association, Inc.; Stanley Karber; Aldo Rodriguez; David Silver; and Karla Moran’s motions for summary judgment. After review, the trial court’s order granting Defendants summary adjudication on all claims is affirmed. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, J.; HUBER, P.J., and BLACKWELL, J., concur. March 8, 2024

121,693 – Cody Pennington, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Cimarron Pointe Apartments, LLC, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Anthony L. Bonner, Jr., Trial Judge. We find the district court’s order, containing a thorough and accurate discussion of the undisputed material facts and application of the relevant binding and persuasive authority to those facts, adequately explains why Defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Therefore, we summarily affirm the order pursuant to Oklahoma Supreme Court Rule 1.202(d). AFFIRMED UNDER RULE 1.202(d). Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, J.; HUBER, P.J., and BLACKWELL, J., concur. March 8, 2024

120.921 – Neal Cattle Company, Plaintiff/Appellee, vs. Jace E. King, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Garvin County, Hon. Steven Kendall, Associate District Judge. Jace E. King appeals a judgment of the district court awarding the Neal Cattle Company $9,518 in attorney fees after Neal Cattle prevailed in a declaratory judgment action. We hold that Oklahoma law does not provide for attorney fees in the action below and therefore reverse the award. REVERSED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Div. IV by BLACKWELL, J.; HUBER, P.J., and HIXON, J., concur. March 8, 2024

Posted in Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion and tagged Dispositions, Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinions, Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals