Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | May 15, 2024
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
121,051 – Quincy James Normandin, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Melissa Renal Normandin, Respondent/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Mayes County, Oklahoma. Honorable Rebecca J. Gore, Trial Judge. Petitioner/Appellant Quincy James Normandin (Father) appeals from a decree of dissolution of marriage between Father and Respondent/Appellee Melissa Renae Normandin (Mother), wherein Mother was awarded sole custody of the parties’ minor children, with visitation for Father. Father argues that the trial court improperly applied 43 0.S. 109 (I) (1) and 109.3 in failing to consider additional evidence once Father had rebutted the presumption arising out of statutory language. We agree that the trial court appears to have inconsistently applied the relevant statutes and reverse and remand the matter for additional clarification and application of the same. Opinion by SWINTON, P.J.; BELL, V.C.J., and PRINCE, J., concur. May 8, 2024
121,302 – In Re the Marriage of: Mitchell Dana Blessing, Petitioner/Appellee, vs. Sharon Marie Blessing, Respondent/Appellant. Respondent/Appellant, Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable James Huber, Trial Judge. Sharon Marie Blessing (“Wife”), appeals an Order denying her Motion to Settle Journal Entry or, Alternatively, Motion to Determine Interest Due on Judgment. The Petitioner/Appellee, Mitchell Dana Blessing (“Husband”), was ordered to pay Wife a substantial alimony in lieu of property division award in their Decree of Dissolution of Marriage. Wife sought statutory postjudgment interest on the amount due, pursuant to 12 0.S. 727.1, which the trial court denied. The primary issue in this appeal is whether, under 727.1, postjudgment interest on judgments for alimony in lieu of property division is mandatory or whether the trial court has discretion to order postjudgment interest. We find that, for purposes of an award of alimony in lieu of property division, an award of postjudgment interest is within the sound discretion of the trial court. The record here shows that the trial court exercised its discretion by not awarding postjudgment interest during any of the critical points during the case. We, thus, AFFIRM the Order of the trial court. Opinion by PRINCE, J.; SWINTON, P.J., and BELL, V.C. J., concur. May 8, 2024
121,556 – Robert Morales, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. East Central Oklahoma Electric Cooperative, Inc., Defendant/Appellee, and Benton Technical Services Inc., Defendant. Appeal from the District Court of Creek County, Oklahoma. Honorable Lawrence W. Parish, Trial Judge. Plaintiff/Appellant, Robert Morales, an independent contractor’s owner/employee, brought this negligence action against Appellee/Defendant, East Central Oklahoma Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Co-op), the owner of power poles with energized power lines. Plaintiff was employed by an independent contractor, Country Wide, LLC, which was hired by Co-op’s independent contractor, Benton Technical Services, Inc. (Benton), to string fiber optic cable on Coop’s power poles. Plaintiff was severely injured when a portion of energized power line fell on Plaintiff while he was stringing fiber optic cable on a power pole. Plaintiff sued Co-op for negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment to Co-op, presumably holding that pursuant to Hatley v. Mobil Pipe Line co., 1973 OK 42, 512 P.2d 182, co-op owes no duty to protect the independent contractor’s employee from the hazard. Hatley held a premises owner who engages an independent contractor to do work on its premises owes the contractor’s employee a duty to furnish the employee a safe place to work. However, this duty is qualified. So long as the premises owner does not interfere with or direct the independent contractor’s employee’s work, then the premises owner is not obligated to protect the employee from hazards which are incidental to or part of the very work the independent contractor was hired to perform. Hatley at 116. After viewing all inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, we find genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether injury by an energized line was incidental to or part of the work which Plaintiff was hired to perform. The existence of these genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment. The trial court’s order granting Co-op’s motion for summary judgment is REVERSED and this matter is REMANDED for further proceedings. Opinion by BELL, v.c.J.; SWINTON, P.J., and PRINCE, J., concur. May 8, 2024
121,714 – In Re the Adoption of L W.D.D. and E.C.D., minor children, Andrew and Jessica Dahlem, Petitioners/Appellees, v. Joshua Doyel, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Blaine County, Oklahoma. Respondent/Appellant Joshua Doyel appeals from an order finding his biological children, W.D.D. and E.C.D. (collectively, Children), eligible for adoption without consent and from the final adoption decree. Petitioners/Appellees Jessica (Mother) and Andrew Dahlem (Dahlem), Children’s mother and step-father, sought to have Children adopted by Dahlem due to Doyel’s willful failure to support Children. The Dahlems presented clear and convincing evidence that Doyel willfully failed to support Children for twelve months and that adoption by Dahlem was in Children’s best interests. We affirm. Opinion by SWINTON, P.J.; BELL, V.C.J., and PRINCE, J., concur. May 8, 2024
121,901 – John Stephen Routt, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. The GEO Group, Inc., Mark Bowen, Ginette Nganga, Vicki Hartless, Mrs. Hoffman, William Honaker, and C.O. Christensen, Defendant/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Comanche County, Oklahoma. Honorable Jay Walker, Trial Judge. John Stephen Routt, an Oklahoma state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals the district court’s dismissal of a civil rights action he brought under the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. 1983) and the Government Tort Claims Act (51 0.S. 151, et al.). Routt claimed Defendants, The GEO Group, Inc., Mark Bowen, Ginette Nganga, Vicki Harless, Mrs. Hoffman, William Honaker, and C.O. Christensen each contributed to the alleged violations of constitutional rights. Defendants The GEO Group, Inc., Bowen, Hoffman, and Christensen moved to dismiss Routt’s claims pursuant to 57 0.S. 566.4, while Defendants Nganga, Harless, and Honaker moved to dismiss Routt’s claims pursuant to 12 0.S. 2012(B)(4). The trial court ultimately granted both Motions to Dismiss which Routt alleges were both granted in error. Upon review of the record and applicable authority, we find that, although our legal analysis differs on several issues, the trial court’s ultimate disposition of Routt’s claims against all Defendants was proper. Opinion by PRINCE, J.; BELL, V.C.J., and SWINTON, P.J., concur. May 8, 2024
121,052 – Krystal Martin, an individual and on behalf of the Estate of Kaleb Foster, deceased, as next of kin, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Sports City Cantina, Inc.–Durant, d/b/a Salita’s; Carson’s Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Ninth Street Bar, Ninth Street Bar, LLC; The Red Barn Saloon, Ltd., d/b/a The Red Barn Saloon; and Bradley Shawn Pittman, Defendants, and Stephen Nelson, an individual, Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Bryan County, Hon. Mark R. Campbell, Trial Judge. In this wrongful death action, Stephen Nelson (Father), the biological father of the decedent, Kaleb Foster, appeals from the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law granting the motion of Krystal Martin (Mother), Kaleb’s biological mother, to allocate certain settlement proceeds. From our review of the record and applicable law, we conclude the trial court had jurisdiction to allocate the settlement proceeds in this wrongful death action and its award of those proceeds to Mother and Father for their grief and loss of companionship is supported by competent evidence. Further, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dividing those proceeds 90% to Mother and 10% to Father. Accordingly, we affirm. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by BARNES, C.J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. May 13, 2024
Division II
121,676 – Charlotte Elyce Campbell, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Evans Enterprises, Inc.; Sylynda J. Thrash; Charles M. Evans; Russell H. Thrash; Evan Thrash; Kim B. Hodges; Dylan K. Baugh; Sylynda Joyce Thrash Trust; Russell H. Thrash Trust; and Charles M. Evans Living Trust, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Cleveland County, Hon. Michael D. Tupper, Trial Judge. Plaintiff appeals from the district court’s order granting the motions to dismiss of Defendants. The district court concluded that Plaintiff’s petition should be dismissed pursuant to 12 O.S. 2021 § 2012(B)(1) because the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction as a result of a certain settlement agreement. We conclude the district court erred in determining it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The district court’s order dismissing this case with prejudice is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the district court for further proceedings. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by BARNES, C.J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. May 14, 2024
Division III
120,762 – In the Matter of A.B., M.B., J.B., S.B., and L.B., Alleged Deprived Children, Heather Braitsch, Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Wagoner County, Oklahoma. Honorable Gary Huggins, Trial Judge. Heather Braitsch (Mother) appeals from an order adjudicating her five children to be deprived. Following a bench trial, the court found the existence of the following conditions leading to the adjudication: possessing/using illegal drugs/addiction; neglect; mental health instability; failure to maintain a safe and/or sanitary home; failure to maintain a substantial relationship with the children; threat of harm; and abandonment. Mother claims she was disabled due to an earlier cancer diagnosis and that drug interactions caused her to have a “mental break.” She claims it was a singular event which led to her children being removed and that she is fine now. She even voluntarily attended parenting and anger management classes. However, Mother’s behavior and hostility towards the DHS case worker made it impossible for the worker to assess the situation resulting in the adjudication. There was competent evidence supporting the adjudication findings. AFFIRMED. Opinion by MITCHELL, P.J.; GOREE, J., and DOWNING, J., concur.
120,864 – Carl Arie Chasteen and Marsha Ann Chasteen, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. The Unknown Successors of Ida Burgess, et al., and Donna Elise Lee as Special Administrator of the Estate of Ida Burgess, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Wagoner County, Oklahoma. Honorable Dennis N. Shook, Trial Judge. Defendant appeals a judgment granting Plaintiffs’ Petition to Quiet Title and Determine Heirs. We AFFIRM. Opinion by GOREE, J.; MITCHELL, P.J., and DOWNING, J., concur.
121,195 – BCE-Mach LLC, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Aexco Petroleum, Inc., Defendant/Appellant, and Firethorn Holdings, LLC, Jamie S. Beisel, Trustee of the Jamie S. Buck Trust dated 7/5/2007, James M. Buck, Trustee of the James M. Buck Trust dated 10/23/2005, Marlene Sue Buck, Trustee of the Marlene Sue Buck Trust dated 10/23/2005, James Lee Summers, Linda Kay Summers, Shon Del Summers, Sue Ann Cronkhite, Clayton Lee Summers, and Jamie S. Beisel, Trustee (Remainder Interest) of the James M. Buck (Life Estate Interest) and Jamie S. Buck Trust dated 7/5/2007, Defendants, and Aexco Peroleum, Inc., Third-Party Plaintiff/Appellant, v. BP America Production Company, and Tiptop Oil & Gas US LLC, Third-Party Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of Alfalfa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Loren Angle, Trial Judge. AEXCO Petroleum, Inc. appeals from the March 3, 2023 Final Decree and Judgment entered in favor of BCE-Mach LLC. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we AFFIRM. Opinion by DOWNING, J.; MITCHELL, P.J., and GOREE, J., concur.
121,448 – In the Matter of the Guardianship of A.J.R-C., and J.A.R-C., minor children, Jose Ramirez-Lainez, and Cristian Rios-Calidonio, Appellants, v. Jesus Rios Paz., Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Rich Hathcoat, Trial Judge. Appellants, Jose Ramirez-Lainez and Christian Rios-Calidonio, the prospective guardians of J.A.R-C., seek review of the Tulsa County District Court’s June 13, 2023 order denying a general guardianship and attendant factual findings requested for J.A.R-C., while granting a general guardianship and attendant factual findings for the younger brother, A.J.R-C. We AFFIRM the decision of the Tulsa County District Court. Opinion by GOREE, J.; MITCHELL, P.J., concurs and DOWNING, J., specially concurs.
Division IV