Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | April 23, 2025
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
122,848 – Vernon James Willis, Full Blood Choctaw, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Robert T. Keel, Defendant/Appellant, and Cathy Jo Ashalintubbi, Enoch Jr. Ashalintubbi, Jency Mae Willis Bohanan, Full Blood Choctaw (MGF-5821; MGM-5793), Leon Joe Bohanan, Katherine Hardaway, Jimmy Earle Keel, Francile Willis Williams, Full Blood Choctaw (MGF-5821; MGM-5793), John Raymond Williams, Dale David Willis, Earline Willis, Elesten Willis s/p/a Elesten Willis Sr., Full Blood Choctaw, NE (PM-2038 and PF-2765), Frances Samuel Willis, Full Blood Choctaw NE (PF-5821; PM-5793), Lillinlla Willis s/p/a Lilliella Willis, Rayson Willis, Full Blood Choctaw (MGF-5821; MGM-5793), Roy Allen Willis, Full Blood Choctaw (MGF-5821: MGM-5793), and their spouses, and each of said defendants, if living, or if dead, their unknown successors, and – The known and unknown successors of: Olarney Baker, then Willis, female, Full Blood Choctaw, Roll No. 2038, died intestate 07-09-1959, Laymes Willis Full Blood Choctaw, NE (PM-2038 and PF-2765) died intestate on or about 12-02-1976, Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of McCurtain County, Oklahoma. Honorable Tim T. Ragland, Trial Judge. Vernon James Willis, Plaintiff/Appellee, filed a petition to quiet title. He alleges the subject property is inherited restricted Indian Land and he is the owner. Robert T. Keel, Defendant/Appellant, alleges he is the grantee of ten acres of the property and the restrictions were removed. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The trial court invalidated the pertinent deeds and Keel appealed. The order is REVERSED because the evidentiary material in the record does not support summary judgment. Opinion by GOREE, P.J.; SWINTON, J., and PRINCE, J., concur. April 16, 2025
122,147 – Robert Vincent Wonsch, Plaintiff/Appellant, James Radford, Charles T. Laughlin, Troy Cowin and Cynthia Viol, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Cleveland County. Honorable C. Steven Kessinger, Plaintiff/Appellant, Robert Vincent Wonsch, appeals from the trial court’s order (1) denying his motion for default judgment and (2) dismissing his petition in this tort action against Defendants/Appellants, James Radford, Charles T. Laughlin, Troy Cowin and Cynthia Viol. Each of the defendants were attorneys employed by the Oklahoma Indigent Defense System (OIDS) while Wonsch was being prosecuted for numerous felony charges. We hold Wonsch failed to properly name Laughlin, Cowin and Viol as party defendants in this case because his amended petition was filed after this case was removed to federal court, and prior to remand, making his attempt to name those defendants “absolutely void.” Moreover, Wonsch failed to serve any of those defendants with process. We also hold the trial court properly dismissed Wonsch’s original petition against Radford because Wonsch failed to comply with the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act, 51 O.S. §151 et seq. Wonsch’s reliance on Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 102 S.Ct. 445, 70 L.Ed.2d 509 (1981), is misplaced. Dodson dealt solely with public defender immunity under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the Dodson Court specifically “intimate[d] no views as to a public defender’s liability for malpractice in an appropriate case under state tort law.” The factual allegations of Wonsch’s petition and the reasonable inferences therefrom contain no support that Radford acted outside the scope of his employment. AFFIRMED. Opinion by GOREE, P.J.; SWINTON, J., and PRINCE, J., concur. April 23, 2025
Division II
122,033 – In re the Matter of: Joshua Davis, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Allison Stephens, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Honorable Elizabeth Kerr, Trial Judge. Joshua Davis (Father) appeals a decree of paternity which also grants the request for relocation filed by Allison Stephens (Mother). Father asserts trial court error in finding that Mother’s relocation request was made in good faith and that relocation was in the children’s best interest, and in awarding joint custody and designating Mother as the primary decision-maker. After reviewing the record and applicable law, we conclude Father has failed to show the trial court’s decisions on relocation or custody are against the clear weight of the evidence, and we affirm. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; FISCHER, J., and BLACKWELL, J., concur. April 22, 2025
122,043 – In re the Marriage of: George William Howard, Petitioner/Appellant, vs. Madeline Grace Poynter, Respondent/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Honorable Sharon Byers, Trial Judge. George William Howard appeals from the trial court’s orders granting Madeline Grace Poynter’s motion to dismiss this family law action and denying Howard’s motion to reconsider. We conclude after de novo review that the trial court properly dismissed Howard’s Oklahoma County dissolution of marriage case for improper venue and affirm. The trial court’s denial of Howard’s motion for reconsideration was not erroneous, and there being no abuse of discretion, the trial court’s order on this issue is also affirmed. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; FISCHER, J., and BLACKWELL, J., concur. April 22, 2025
Division III
121,891 – TRDWind Cascades, L.L.C., Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Walter Mickles, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Tammy Bruce, Trial Judge. Defendant, Walter Mickles, appeals the Tulsa County District Court order of December 11, 2023, resulting from a forcible entry and detainer (F.E.D.) action brought against him by his landlord, Appellee, TRDWind Cascades, L.L.C. The decision against Mickles ordered him to vacate the property and imposed a past due judgment to be paid to TRDWind, the landlord/Appellee. We AFFIRM. Opinion by BELL, C.J.; DOWNING, P.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. April 17, 2025
121,991 – Jerry Green, Petitioner, v. Multiple Injury Trust Fund, and the Oklahoma Workers’ Compensation Commission, Respondents. Proceeding to review an order of the Workers’ Compensation Commission En Banc. Jerry Green, Petitioner/Claimant, sought permanent total disability (PTD) from the Multiple Injury Trust Fund (MITF) due to the combined effects of multiple injuries. Claimant’s prior adjudicated injuries included binaural hearing loss and rib injuries, adding up to 34.89% permanent partial disability (PPD). In 2015, Claimant injured both of his knees, which resulted in 44% PPD. Giving deference to the Commission’s Independent Medical Examiner (CIME) opinion, the Workers’ Compensation Commission determined that Claimant was still employable and denied his request for PTD benefits from the MITF. On appeal, Claimant argues that the CIME overlooked the cumulative impact of his injuries, limited education, diminished learning ability, and his limited employment experience in assessing his PTD status. However, we find that the CIME and the Commission properly considered each of these factors. Applying the standard found in 85A O.S. 2021 78(C), we find that the Commission properly relied on the CIME’s opinion, and such decision was not clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, material, probative, and substantial competent evidence. AFFIRMED. Opinion by BELL, C.J.; DOWNING, P.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. April 17, 2025
122,031 – In re the Marriage of: Angela Fiore, Petitioner/Appellee, v. John Fiore, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Washington County, Oklahoma. Honorable Kyra K. Franks, Trial Judge. Appellant John Fiore (Father) appeals the trial court’s order denying a motion to reconsider the trial court’s entry of default judgment against him. Fiore’s motion to vacate the default judgment and a later supplement to that motion alleged that Fiore did not have notice of the Motion for Default or the Application for Suit Monies and that the Journal Entry awarding default judgment should be vacated as it was void and/or due to various irregularities in obtaining judgment pursuant to 12 O.S.2011, § 1031. After review, we agree with Father and REVERSE the Journal Entry granting default judgment. Opinion by DOWNING, P.J.; BELL, C.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. April 17, 2025
Division IV
121,107 (Companion with Case No. 122,064) – In re the Marriage of: Jeanna M. Freeman, now Wood, Petitioner/Appellant, vs. Robert H. Freeman, Respondent/ Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Canadian County, Honorable Charles Gass, Trial Judge. Jeana M. Freeman, now Wood, appeals an order which granted Robert H. Freeman’s motion to set a payment plan and denied her motion for sanctions. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we affirm that portion of the court’s order denying Wood’s motion for sanction and vacate that portion setting a payment plan. AFFIRMED IN PART AND VACATED IN PART. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, V.C.J.; BARNES, P.J., and HUBER, J., concur. April 17, 2025
122,064 (Companion with Case No. 121,107) – In re the Marriage of: Jeanna M. Freeman, now Wood, Petitioner/Appellant, vs. Robert H. Freeman, Respondent/ Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Canadian County, Honorable Charles Gass, Trial Judge. Jeana M. Freeman, now Wood, appeals an order awarding Robert H. Freeman judgment for overpayment of child support. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we reverse the judgment. REVERSED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, V.C.J.; BARNES, P.J., and HUBER, J., concur. April 17, 2025
122,266 – Aaron and Alison Petrone, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company, an Oklahoma corporation, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Cleveland County, Hon. Thad Balkman, Trial Judge. Plaintiffs seek review of the district court’s order denying their motion to vacate an order dismissing their petition. We conclude the district court did not err in rejecting Plaintiffs’ argument that, despite the continuation of Defendant’s services, any authorization Defendant may have had to exact a franchise fee from customers in the municipality wherein Plaintiffs reside expired when the franchise agreement lapsed. Moreover, we conclude the district court did not err in rejecting Plaintiffs’ argument that neither the franchise agreement nor any applicable Oklahoma Corporation Commission regulations authorize Defendant to separately list the franchise tax on the electricity bills of its customers. Consequently, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to vacate. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by BARNES, P.J.; HIXON, V.C.J., and HUBER, J., concur. April 21, 2025