Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | May 29, 2024
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
121,160 – Jack A. Tucker, individually, d/b/a Keyport Marina a/k/a Keyport Marina, Inc., Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Ron Lawrence, d/b/a Safe Harbor Products, a/k/a Safe Harbor Products, LLC, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Rebecca B. Nightingale, Trial Judge. Plaintiff/Appellee, Jack A. Tucker, individually and d/b/a Keyport Marina aka Keyport Marina, Inc., brought this action against Defendant/Appellant, Ron Lawrence d/b/a Safe Harbor Products aka Safe Harbor Products, LLC, to recover $50,000.00. This amount was the remaining unpaid portion of Plaintiff’s $60,000.00 loan to Defendant. In the alternative, Plaintiff sought to characterize the $60,000.00 check written to and cashed by Defendant as a refundable deposit. Defendant counterclaimed for the value of a single stall boat dock which Defendant voluntarily attached to Plaintiff’s multi-stall boat dock #4 for safekeeping, and for labor and parts expended by Defendant in building a twelve-stall boat dock for Plaintiff under an alleged contract. After a non-jury trial, the trial court granted judgment to Plaintiff on his action to recover the money in the amount of $50,000.00. The trial court also granted judgment to Plaintiff on Defendant’s counterclaim holding “Defendant fails to sustain his burden that Plaintiff entered into a contract. Defendant’s counterclaim fails on the evidence.” After reviewing the record, this Court holds competent evidence supports the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law that Plaintiff either loaned or remitted a refundable deposit of $60,000.00 to Defendant; Defendant repaid $10,000.00 of that loan/deposit and he intended to repay the remainder of the loan/deposit; the parties never entered into a written agreement whereby Defendant agreed to build a dock for Plaintiff; Defendant never tendered a dock to Plaintiff; and Defendant’s counterclaim failed on the evidence. The trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. Opinion by BELL, V.C.J.; SWINTON, P.J., and PRINCE, J., concur. May 22, 2024
121,632 – The Town of Gage, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Needful Things, Inc., Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Ellis County, Oklahoma. Honorable F. Pat Versteeg, Trial Judge. Defendant/Appellant, Needful Things, Inc., entered into a commercial lease with the Plaintiff/Appellee, The Town of Gage, Oklahoma (“Town”). The Town subsequently held a public meeting and at the meeting, the Board of Trustees voted to terminate the lease. When Needful Things did not vacate the premises, the Town filed a Forcible Entry and Detainer action. Needful Things argued that the action taken by the Town to terminate the lease was void for failure to comply with 74 O.S. § 3106.2, which requires public bodies to make available a schedule and information about regularly scheduled meetings on a website. The Town argued that it complied with the notice provisions of the Oklahoma Meeting Act (“OMA”). See 25 O.S. § 311(A)(9). The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the Town and Needful Things commenced this appeal. We find that the trial court committed no error because the Town adequately complied with the notice provisions of the OMA. We, therefore, AFFIRM the Small Claims Court Minute and/or Judgment. Opinion by PRINCE, J.; BELL, V.C.J., and SWINTON, P.J., concur. May 22, 2024
121,661 – In the Matter of M.H.B., M.B., and M.M.B. Children under 18 years of age, Jacob Behne, Natural Father, Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Charles Kevin Morrison, Trial Judge. Appellant, Jacob Behne (“Father”), appeals an Order terminating his parental rights to three minor children. Father did not appear on the trial date, so the trial court determined that Father waived his right to a jury trial and proceeded with a nonjury trial. At the conclusion of trial, the trial court terminated Father’s parental rights. On appeal Father claims that the trial court committed error when it found that he waived his right to a jury trial and, in addition, Father argues that he was not provided with effective assistance of counsel. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the trial court failed to make an adequate record to support a finding that Father was “without good cause” for his failure to appear when the case was called for a jury trial, as required by 10A O.S. § 1-4-502(B). The Order of the trial court is REVERSED AND this matter is REMANDED to the trial court for a new trial. Opinion by PRINCE, J.; BELL, V.C.J., and SWINTON, P.J., concur. May 22, 2024
121,793 – Jimmie Wilson, Petitioner/Appellee, v. Multiple Injury Trust Fund, and The Workers’ Compensation Commission, Respondent/Appellee. Appeal from a Decision of the Oklahoma Workers’ Compensation Commission En Banc Panel. The Multiple Injury Trust Fund appeals the grant of Permanent Total Disability benefits to Petitioner/Appellee, Jimmie Wilson. On appeal, the MITF claims the Administrative Law Judge’s Order (subsequently affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Commission) that Wilson did not meet the statutory requirements of a “physically impaired person” pursuant to 85A O.S. § 30. Wilson previously filed two workers’ compensation claims, one stemming from a fall off the catwalk of his semi-truck trailer and the other arising from separate injuries that occurred when, while still lying on the ground from the fall, another tractor-trailer ran over his lower, bilateral extremities. Following the joint petition settlement of both claims, Wilson sought benefits from the MITF. Upon review of the record and relevant legal authority, we find no error in the lower courts’ findings that Wilson, indeed, qualified as a “physically impaired person.” Accordingly, we AFFIRM. Opinion by PRINCE, J.; BELL, V.C.J., and SWINTON, P.J., concur. May 22, 2024
Division II
Division III
121,340 – Dallas E. Smith and Micah Patrick, Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. Norman Regional Health System, a Public Trust, Defendant/Appellant, and Norman Regional Hospital Authority, a Public Trust d/b/a Norman Regional Health System, Third Party Plaintiff, v. City of Norman, ex rel, Norman Police Department, Third Party Defendant. Appeal from the District Court of Cleveland County, Oklahoma. Honorable Lori Walkley, Trial Judge. The issue before us is whether the trial court properly granted conditional certification of a class for purposes of bringing a class action lawsuit against a local hospital for alleged improper billing. Following de novo review, we reverse the trial court’s order granting conditional certification because the order fails to appoint class counsel and to define the class, the class claims, the issues, and the defenses as required by 12 O.S. 2021 §2023(C)(1). REVERSED AND REMANDED. Opinion by MITCHELL, P.J.; GOREE, J., and DOWNING, J., concur.
121,435 – Barton Speegle, Petitioner, v. Multiple Injury Trust Fund and The Workers’ Compensation Commission, Respondents. Proceeding to review an order of The Workers’ Compensation Commission. Petitioner Barton Speegle (Claimant) appeals from an order of the Workers’ Compensation Commission (the Commission) finding that he was not permanently totally disabled (PTD) and thus could not recover PTD benefits from Respondent Multiple Injury Trust Fund (MITF). On appeal, Claimant contends the Commission’s finding that he was not PTD is (1) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, material, probative and substantial competent evidence and (2) contrary to law. We SUSTAIN. Opinion by MITCHELL, P.J.; GOREE, J., and DOWNING, J., concur.
121,841 – In the Matter of the Adoption of: M.C.M., & R.F.M., Courtney Michelle Moore, Appellant, v. Cody Moore and Kourtney Moore, Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Mayes County, Oklahoma. Honorable Shawn S. Taylor, Trial Judge. Appellant, Courtney Moore (Mother) appeals from the trial court’s November 13, 2023, Order Adjudicating Minor Children Eligible for Adoption Without Consent of Natural Mother (Order). Upon review of the record and applicable law, we AFFIRM. Opinion by DOWNING, J.; MITCHELL, P.J., and GOREE, J., concur.
Division IV
120,050 – Norris Auto Sales, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company; Firris Birris Kline, an individual; T. J. Norris, an individual, Plaintiffs/Appellees, vs. Zurich American Insurance Company and Universal Underwriters Insurance Company, Defendants/Appellants. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Sheila D. Stinson, Trial Judge. Zurich American Insurance Company and Universal Underwriters Insurance Company appeal a judgment entered on a jury’s verdict for $9,000,000 for breach of the duty of good faith, as well as $18,000,000 in punitive damages. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we reverse the judgment on the verdict because the jury was improperly instructed, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HUBER, P.J.; WISEMAN, J. (sitting by designation), concurs, and BLACKWELL, J., dissents. May 24, 2024
121,625 – Lawrence E. Wolf and Ruth M. Wolf, Plaintiffs/Appellees, vs. Dustin Peterson and Andra Erbar, Defendants/Appellants. Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Natalie Mai, District Judge. Defendants appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs. Upon review, we find that the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs and thereby affirm. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV by BLACKWELL, J.; HUBER, P.J., concurs, and HIXON, J., concurs specially. May 28, 2024