Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | May 1, 2024
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
Division II
Division III
121,032 — Stanley A. Stromberg, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. James L. Stromberg, and David E. Stromberg, as Trustees of the Frances I. Stromberg Trust dated September 15, 2009, and individually, Defendants/Appellants. Appeal from the District Court of Payne County, Oklahoma. Honorable Phillip C. Corley, Trial Judge. This appeal springs from an action filed by Plaintiff/Appellee Stanley A. Stromberg (Stanley) against his brothers, Defendants/Appellants James L. Stromberg (James) and David E. Stromberg (David). Stanley, James, and David are co-trustees of their mother’s trust, and Stanley claimed James and David breached their fiduciary duties under the trust. On appeal, James and David claim the trial court abused its discretion by (1) finding that James failed his duty to provide an accurate accounting, (2) determining that James allowed trust money to be embezzled or converted and ordering him to make restitution to the trust in the amount of $15,731.96, (3) ordering James to retrieve and distribute personal property belonging to their mother at her death, and (4) awarding attorney’s fees and costs. The court’s findings are not against the clear weight of the evidence, nor are they contrary to law or established principles of equity. Because we find no reversible errors of law and the trial court’s order adequately explains its decision, we affirm under Oklahoma Supreme Court Rule 1.202(d), 12 O.S. 2021, Ch. 15, App. 1. Opinion by MITCHELL, P.J.; GOREE, J., and DOWNING, J., concur. April 25, 2024
121,290 — D. Lindsay Perkins, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Alan Ringle, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Caroline Wall, Trial Judge. Appellant, D. Lindsay Perkins (Perkins), files an appeal from an Order Awarding Attorney Fees and Costs and Supplemental Order and Final Judgment. Perkins brought an action against Appellee, Alan Ringle (Ringle), for defaulting on a promissory note. Perkins prevailed, albeit a fraction of the damages sought. Perkins then sought attorney fees pursuant to 12 O.S.2021, § 936. The trial court held a hearing and each side presented witnesses. The trial court had a second proceeding wherein each party presented closing arguments. Finally, the trial court ordered the parties to appear for a third proceeding wherein the parties and the trial court discussed specific issues. The trial court went to great lengths to review everything and after much argument between the parties, thoroughly explained its reasoning for the findings it ultimately issued in extensive written form. After a thorough review of the record, the parties’ pleadings, and applicable law, we hold the trial court’s findings of fact are supported by sufficient competent evidence, the findings of fact and conclusions of law are adequately explained in the two appealed orders, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the trial court’s Order Awarding Attorney Fees and Costs and Supplemental Order and Final Judgment. Okla. Sup. Ct. R. 1.202(b), (d) and (e), 12 O.S.2021, Ch. 15, App. 1. Opinion by DOWNING, J.; MITCHELL, P.J., and GOREE, J., concur. April 25, 2024
121,392 — Ross Evan Turner, Petitioner/Appellee, v. Shari Kathlene Holoway, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Rogers County, Oklahoma. Honorable Sue Nigh, Trial Judge. Defendant/Appellant Shari Holloway seeks review of a protective order granted to her biological son, plaintiff Ross Turner. Ross is now 18 years old and a senior in high school. Several years earlier Shari had given up her parental rights to allow the stepmother to adopt Ross. The protective order was granted on the ground of stalking. Ross complained of three incidents which triggered PTSD symptoms. There was a stock show Ross attended when he was a freshman in high school at the fairgrounds in Oklahoma City where Ross saw his mother in the stands. There was a funeral for his grandfather (Shari’s father) where he saw Shari. There was also an FFA convention in Tulsa at the BOK Center where he was told Shari was in the stands. There was no contact or communication between the two at these events. A protective order for stalking requires that there be “willful, malicious, and repeated following or harassment of a person by an adult, emancipated minor, or minor thirteen (13) years of age or older, in a manner that would cause a reasonable person to feel frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested.” (Emphasis added). Title 22 O.S. Supp. 2022 §60.1(10) emerg. eff. May 11, 2022. Shari had legitimate reasons to be at these events and nothing she did meets the definition of stalking. The protective order is REVERSED. Opinion by MITCHELL, P.J.; GOREE, J., and DOWNING, J., concur. April 25, 2024
121,977 — Alisha Tarwater and Randy Tarwater, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Falconhead Property Owners Association, Inc., Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Love County, Oklahoma. Honorable Todd Hicks, Trial Judge. Appellants, Alisha and Randy Tarwater (Tarwaters) purchased twenty-one lots of land located within the Falconhead Resort and Country Club by way of tax sales and took title to fourteen lots on September 6, 2022, and the remaining lots on March 13, 2023. Appellees, Falconhead Property Owners Association, Inc (the Association), assessed fees according to the By-Laws to the Tarwaters for their various lots to which the Tarwaters paid. However, the Tarwaters initiated this lawsuit claiming that since they purchased their lots at a tax resale, the Association’s covenants did not survive the tax resale and all such fees assessed by the Association and paid by the Tarwaters should be returned to the Tarwaters. The trial court sustained the Association’s Motion for Summary Judgment. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, this Court AFFIRMS. Opinion by DOWNING, J.; MITCHELL, P.J., and DOWNING, J., concur. April 25, 2024
Division IV
121,399 — In the Matter of B.B., Alleged Deprived Child, Jakisha Berry, Appellant, vs. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Kaitlyn Allen, Trial Judge. Jakisha Berry (Mother) appeals an order terminating her parental rights to minor child B.B. pursuant to10A O.S.2021, § 1-4-904(B)(14), based on a prior deprived child adjudication and failure to correct those same conditions. Mother, a non-Indian citizen, contends she has been denied equal protection under the law based on the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 25 U.S.C.A. § 1912(f); that the jury’s verdict was not supported by clear and convincing evidence; and that she was unduly prejudiced by the admission of hearsay pertaining to her child welfare history. Based on our review of the record, the applicable law and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the trial court’s order terminating Mother’s parental rights to B.B. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, J.; HUBER, P.J., and BLACKWELL, J., concur. April 30, 2024