Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | June 5, 2024
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
Division II
120,247 – In re the marriage of: Charles Scott Nakvinda, Petitioner/Appellee, vs. Laurel Lee Nakvinda, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from Order of District Court of Canadian County, Hon. Charles W. Gass, Trial Judge. Appellant Laurel Nakvinda appeals those portions of the Decree of Dissolution addressing division of marital property and debts in the underlying divorce action involving Appellee Charles Nakvinda. We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s determination that settlement funds and the parties’ respective retirement accounts were marital assets subject to equitable division. We further find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s determination that the parties’ 2019 joint tax liability was a marital debt subject to equitable division. The Decree is affirmed. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by FISCHER, J., WISEMAN, P.J., and BARNES, C.J., concur. June 3, 2024
121,692 — Hanna AlNahhas and Barbara AlNahhas, Plaintiffs/Appellants, vs. AJS Partners, LLC, Defendant/Appellee, and Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., Intervenor. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Natalie Mai, Trial Judge. Plaintiffs Hanna AlNahhas and Barbara AlNahhas appeal trial court orders granting summary judgment in favor of AJS Partners, LLC, and denying Plaintiffs’ motion for new trial. The issues presented are whether the trial court (1) erred in finding that no material disputed fact questions remain and AJS Partners, LLC, is entitled to judgment as a matter of law or (2) abused its discretion in denying Plaintiffs’ motion for new trial. After review of the summary record on appeal and the relevant law, we conclude the trial court neither erred in granting AJS judgment as a matter of law nor abused its discretion in denying Plaintiffs’ motion for new trial. Accordingly, we affirm. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; BARNES, C.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. June 4, 2024
121,706 — The Ralph Eugene Rodgers, Jr., and Patricia Irene Rodgers Revocable Trust, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. AKH Properties, LLC, Defendant/Appellee, and Patricia Irene Rodgers, Defendant. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Natalie Mai, Trial Judge. Co-Trustees Paige Diane Rodgers and Ryan Eugene Rodgers bring this appeal on behalf of Plaintiff Ralph Eugene Rodgers, Jr., and the Patricia Irene Rodgers Revocable Trust contesting the trial court’s order granting Defendant AKH Properties, LLC’s motion for summary judgment against the Trust. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we dismiss the appeal for lack of an appealable order. APPEAL DISMISSED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; BARNES, C.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. June 4, 2024
120,909 – In re the Marriage of: Mindi Mae Clement, Petitioner/Appellee, vs. Christopher Dean Clement, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Major County, Hon. Timothy Haworth, Trial Judge. In this divorce action, Christopher Dean Clement appeals from the trial court decree dividing marital property and determining child support and custody. We are asked to review whether the trial court abused its discretion in (1) determining property division, (2) calculating child support, and (3) failing to award the parties joint custody or shared parenting time. After review of the record and applicable law, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with directions. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; BARNES, C.J., and
FISCHER, J., concur. June 4, 2024
Division III
121,305 – Debra Jordan, Petitioner/Appellee, v. Willie Threet, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Carter County, Oklahoma. Honorable Ryan G. Hunnicutt, Trial Judge. Respondent / Appellant, Willie Threet, appeals an order denying his motion to vacate a protective order entered in favor of Petitioner / Appellee, Debra Jordan. We hold the district court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded Appellant received due notice of the hearing. The final protective order expired before this matter reached the decisional stage. However, because the same parties are currently litigating another action arising from the same set of facts, the case is subject to the likelihood-of-recurrence exception to the mootness doctrine. Affirmed. Opinion by GOREE, J.; MITCHELL, P.J., and DOWNING, J., concur. May 29, 2024
121,306 – Carolyn Nalley, Petitioner/Appellee, v. Willie Threet, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Carter County, Oklahoma. Honorable Ryan G. Hunnicutt, Trial Judge. Respondent / Appellant, Willie Threet, appeals an order denying his motion to vacate a protective order entered in favor of Petitioner / Appellee, Carolyn Nalley. We hold the district court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded Appellant received due notice of the hearing. The final protective order expired before this matter reached the decisional stage. However, because the same parties are currently litigating another action arising from the same set of facts, the case is subject to the likelihood-of-recurrence exception to the mootness doctrine. Affirmed. Opinion by GOREE, J.; MITCHELL, P.J., and DOWNING, J., concur. May 29, 2024
121,307 – David Ryland, Petitioner/Appellee, v. Willie Threet, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Carter County, Oklahoma. Honorable Ryan G. Hunnicutt, Trial Judge. Respondent / Appellant, Willie Threet, appeals an order denying his motion to vacate a protective order entered in favor of Petitioner / Appellee, David Ryland. We hold the district court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded Appellant received due notice of the hearing. The final protective order expired before this matter reached the decisional stage. However, because the same parties are currently litigating another action arising from the same set of facts, the case is subject to the likelihood-of-recurrence exception to the mootness doctrine. Affirmed. Opinion by GOREE, J.; MITCHELL, P.J., and DOWNING, J., concur. May 29, 2024
121,647 – Douglas Beall, Victor Diez; George Martin; Robert Moreno; and Eric Sides; Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Valliance Bank; and Roy Oliver, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Cleveland County, Oklahoma. Honorable Michael D. Tupper, Trial Judge. Plaintiffs/Appellants, Douglas Beall, Victor Diaz, George Martin, Robert Moreno and Eric Sides, seek review of the September 8, 2023 Cleveland County District Court order granting the Motions to Dismiss of Defendants/Appellees, Valliance Bank and Roy Oliver. Plaintiffs/Appellants filed a Petition on February 8, 2023 against Valliance Bank and Roy Oliver alleging fraud, unjust enrichment, conspiracy and violations of the Consumer Protection Act, 15 O.S. 1972 §751 et seq. The motion to dismiss is converted into a motion for summary judgment due to the addition of exhibits outside the four-corners of the petition. 12 O.S. Supp.2004 §2012(B). We find the district court correctly determined the statutes of limitation had run on Plaintiffs/Appellants’ claims and granted the order in Defendants/Appellants’ favor accordingly. AFFIRMED. Opinion by GOREE, J.; MITCHELL, P.J., and DOWNING, J., concur. May 29, 2024
121,633 – Wesley Bussman, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. I-44 Antique Mall, Kathy Anthamatten, Fredda Sue Shelley, and John/Jane Doe, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Rebecca B. Nightingale, Trial Judge. Kathy Anthamatten is the owner of I-44 Antique Mall, and Fredda Sue Shelley is a vender within the store. On June 2, 2020, merchandise was stolen from Shelley’s inventory. The theft was reported to the authorities, and after being identified as the perpetrator, Wesley Bussman was charged with felony grand larceny. On March 30, 2023, Bussman filed a petition for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress against I-44 Antique Mall, Anthamatten, and Shelley alleging he was falsely identified by the defendants as the thief. The defendants filed successful motions to dismiss claiming the suit was barred by the applicable statutes of limitation found in 12 O.S. 2021 §95(A)(3), (4). Bussman appealed arguing he did not discover the identities of his alleged accusers until December of 2022, when he received a copy of the Information filed in his criminal case on October 5, 2020, that set out the charges against him and identified the witnesses, including the defendants. Bussman contends the time in which he could file his petition was tolled by the discovery doctrine. We affirm the trial court’s order because, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, Bussman, through his attorneys, knew or should have known the contents of the Information in the criminal case at the time it was filed. For Bussman’s civil claims, the statutes of limitation started running on, or shortly after, October 5, 2020, when the Information was filed. Because Bussman knew or should have known the identities of his alleged accusers from the criminal Information available to his attorneys, the statutes of limitation were not tolled by the discovery doctrine. Bussman failed to file his petition within the statutorily allowable times, and judgment was properly granted to the defendants. AFFIRMED. Opinion by MITCHELL, P.J.; GOREE, J., and BELL, V.C.J.(sitting by designation), concur. May 30, 2024
121,440 – Cushing Hospitality, L.L.C., Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Hiren Patel, a/k/a Chico Patel, an individual, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Payne County, Oklahoma. Honorable Phillip C. Corley, Trial Judge. Hiren Patel, Defendant/Appellant, seeks review of the June 12, 2023 Payne County District Court order granting, in part, the Motion for Summary Judgment of Cushing Hospitality, L.L.C., Plaintiff/Appellee. Cushing was awarded $1,856,107.65 (inclusive of costs and attorney fees) against CMP Construction, Inc. as a result of an arbitration award entered in November 2019. Patel voluntarily dissolved the corporation in June 2017, during arbitration proceedings with Cushing Hospitality. Cushing argued in its Motion for Summary Judgment that it should be permitted to pierce the corporate veil and seek satisfaction of the judgment against Hiren Patel personally. The district court agreed. The district court also denied Cushing’s summary judgment motion on an alter-ego theory against another company and denied Patel’s motion for summary judgment. AFFIRMED. Opinion by GOREE, J.; MITCHELL, P.J., concurs and DOWNING, J., dissents.
Division IV
121,007 — Stein Ancillary Services, LLC, Plaintiff/Appellee, vs. Seminole Nursing Home, Inc., Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Seminole County, Hon. Brett W. Butner, Trial Judge. Seminole Nursing Home, Inc. (Defendant) appeals the trial court’s journal entry denying its motion to vacate a long-final foreign judgment entered in Arkansas in favor of Stein Ancillary Services, LLC. We find Defendant has not met its burden of establishing the Arkansas judgment was facially void, and we affirm the trial court’s journal entry declining to vacate the Arkansas judgment. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, J.; HUBER, P.J., and BLACKWELL, J., concur. May 30, 2024
120,996 – Susan Gokool, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Nicolette Brandvoid and Robert Brandvoid, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Trent Pipes, Special Judge. Susan R. Gokool appeals a decision of the small claims court and the court’s subsequent denial of her motion for new trial. On review, we find no record of either hearing in this case, and we cannot therefore find error on any question of fact from the record. Hamid v. Sew Original, 1982 OK 46, ¶ 6, 645 P.2d 496, 497. As such, the decisions of the district court are affirmed. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV by BLACKWELL, J.; HUBER, P.J., and HIXON, J., concur. June 3, 2024
120,620 – Mark A. Pruitt, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Board of Review of the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission, and Oklahoma Employment Security Commission, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Anthony L. Bonner, Trial Judge. Plaintiff, Mark A. Pruitt, appeals an order of the district court affirming the decision of the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission (OESC) Board of Review denying his claim for unemployment benefits. We affirm the district court’s decision affirming the OESC Board of Review denial of Pruitt’s claim for unemployment benefits. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HUBER, P.J.; HIXON, J., and BLACKWELL, J., concur. June 4, 2024