Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | Aug. 20, 2025
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
122,544 – Jack Haley and Stacy Haley, Husband and Wife, and Chaise Haley, and Cassie Haley, Husband and Wife, Plaintiff/Appellants, v. James Allred and Spouse Betty Allred, Board of County Commissioner of Pontotoc County, Defendants/Appellees, and Edward Allred; Allen Balch and Phillis Balch, Husband and Wife; Justin Colbert and Randi Colbert, Husband and Wife; Benny Looper and Sandra Looper, Husband and Wife; Brian Capps and Stacy Capps, Husband and Wife; and The Oklahoma Tax Commission, Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of Pontotoc County, Oklahoma. Honorable Lori L. Jackson, Trial Judge. Plaintiffs/Appellants Jack, Stacey, Chaise, and Cassie Haley appeal from the trial court’s order denying their motion for new trial. Haleys filed this action seeking to clarify the parties’ rights in a road by which Haleys access their landlocked properties. Defendants/Appellees James Allred and Spouse, and Betty Allred (collectively, Allreds) acknowledged Haleys own easements for access but denied the road was public and denied Haleys’ right to any other relief. The trial court recognized Haleys’ easement for ingress and egress, but the trial court denied their claim that the road was a public road and denied their quests to remove the locked gate or widen the road. In seeking a new trial, Haleys asserted Defendant Pontotoc Board of County Commissioners had passed a resolution after judgment in this case, which Haleys averred was newly discovered evidence requiring a new trial. We find no abuse of discretion in the denial of a new trial, and we therefore affirm. Opinion by SWINTON, J.; GOREE, P.J., and PRINCE, J., concur. Aug. 15, 2025
122,959 – Michael A. Fitz, James R. Fitz, and Howard B. Fitz, Jr., Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. Red Stone Resources, LLC, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Coal County, Oklahoma. Honorable D. Clay Mowdy, Trial Judge. This case involves an agreement for the purchase of certain minerals interests and is the second appeal involving the disputed transaction. In the prior appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, determined that it was error for the trial court to grant summary judgment and remanded the matter for further proceedings. On remand, the trial court attempted to address the issues preserved for remand and again granted summary judgment to the Plaintiffs/Appellees, Michael A. Fitz, James R. Fitz, and Howard B. Fitz, Jr. (collectively referred to as “Fitz” or “Fitz Brothers”). The Defendant/Appellant, Red Stone Resources, LLC (“Red Stone”), commenced this appeal. Red Stone argues that it was error for the trial court to grant summary judgment to enforce the contract for the purchase of minerals because there exist outstanding issues of fact. We agree. Several issues of fact remain, including a calculation of the acreage to be purchased, a determination of the appropriate remedy (a mixed issue of law and fact) and whether the Fitz Brothers received royalty payments from and after the date of the agreements and, if so, how to account and compensate the Parties for those payments. During the pendency of this appeal, the parties filed competing applications for attorney’s fees and costs. The trial court awarded the Fitz Brothers attorney’s fees, costs, and prejudgment interest, but denied Red Stone’s request for fees. Red Stone filed a Second Amended Petition in Error on July 2, 2025, to include issues related to the attorney’s fee award on appeal. We reverse the award of any attorney’s fees, costs and prejudgment interest in light of our ruling on the merits of the case. We, therefore, REVERSE the rulings made by the trial court AND REMAND the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. Opinion by PRINCE, J.; GOREE, P.J., and SWINTON, J., concur. Aug. 15, 2025
Division II
121,938 – In the Matter of the Estate of Marvin C. Alexander, Gussie L. Alexander, Appellant, vs. Joey Alexander, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Pawnee County, Honorable Patrick Pickerill, Trial Judge. In this probate of her husband Marvin’s estate, Appellant Gussie L. Alexander appeals the trial court’s denial of her motion to reconsider filed after her request for approval of final account, petition for order of distribution of estate and discharge of personal representative was denied. After review, we affirm the trial court’s order. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; FISCHER, J., concurs, and BLACKWELL, J., dissents. Aug. 14, 2025
Division III
122,161 – JTG Ventures, LLC, and Jeffrey Wolf, Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants/Appellants, v. Steven B. Silverstein, Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff/Appellee, and O.R.B. LTD., and Jean Wolf, Third Party Defendants/Appellants. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Douglas E. Drummond, Trial Judge. JTG Ventures, LLC (JTG), Jeffrey Wolf (Jeffrey Wolf), Jean Wolf (Jean Wolf), and O.R.B. LTD. (O.R.B.) (collectively Appellants) appeal from the partial grant of summary judgment in favor of Steven Silverstein (Silverstein), the Order Appointing Receiver, the Judgment entered after a jury trial in favor of Silverstein, the Judgment for Attorney Fees, Litigation Costs and Interest, and the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law transferring all funds held by the Receiver to Silverstein. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we AFFIRM. Opinion by DOWNING, P.J.; BELL, C.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. Aug. 15, 2025
122,264 – Frederick A. Yerton, Jr., Plaintiff/Appellant, v. City of Tulsa, Oklahoma, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Douglas E. Drummond, Trial Judge. Frederick A. Yerton, Jr. (Yerton) appeals from the district court’s Journal of Entry/Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law affirming the Tulsa City Council’s Final Order upholding a hearing officer’s Order of Abatement. Yerton’s property was held to be in violation of several city ordinances and Yerton was ordered to either demolish or rehabilitate the dilapidated structure within thirty days. After an administrative hearing an Order of Abatement – Demolition was entered. Yerton appealed to the Tulsa City Council (City Council) who affirmed the hearing officer’s order and Yerton sought review from the district court. The district court affirmed and Yerton appealed to this Court. After a review of the record and the law, we AFFIRM. Opinion by DOWNING, P.J.; BELL, C.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. Aug. 15, 2025
122,481 – Brandon Scott, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. St. John Medical Center, an Oklahoma Corporation; and St. John Health System. Inc., an Oklahoma Corporation; and Ascension Health, a Missouri Corporation, d/b/a Ascension Tulsa, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable William D. LaFortune, Trial Judge. Brandon Scott (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s Order of Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute and Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate. A review of the record shows the trial court’s decision is not erroneous as a matter of law nor an abuse of discretion. Therefore, we summarily AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment pursuant to OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT RULE 1.202(e), 12 O.S.2021, Ch. 15, App.1. Opinion by DOWNING, P.J.; MITCHELL, J., concurs and BELL, C.J., dissents. Aug. 15, 2025
122,836 – Yukon Trading Company, LLC, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Mewbourne Oil Company, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Custer County, Oklahoma. Honorable Donna L. Dirickson, Trial Judge. Yukon Trading Company, LLC (Owner) appeals the trial court’s January 3, 2025 Order denying its Motion For Leave to File Second Amended Petition and Motion to Strike Scheduling Order. Owner filed suit against Mewbourne Oil Company (Operator) seeking declaratory judgment based on Owner’s request for records and a right to an accounting. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we AFFIRM. Opinion by DOWNING, P.J.; BELL, C.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. Aug. 15, 2025
122,963 – James Patrick Lesley, Jr., Petitioner/Appellant, v. Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board, Respondent/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Greer County, Oklahoma. Honorable Eric G. Yarborough, Trial Judge. James Patrick Lesley, Jr. (Lesley) appeals the March 19, 2025, Order denying his motions for summary judgment and dismissing the case for lack of service. In the Order, the trial court found Lesley did not serve the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board with the “Petition for Declaratory Judgment” and Summons and thus, the case would be dismissed, thereby denying Lesley’s pending motions. As no reversable error of law appears, the findings of fact are supported by competent evidence, and the opinion more than adequately explains the trial court’s decision, we summarily affirm the Order pursuant to Oklahoma Supreme Court Rule 1.202(b) and (d), 12 O.S.2021, Ch. 15, App. 1. Opinion by DOWNING, P.J.; BELL, C.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. Aug. 15, 2025
123,122 – In the Matter of the Estate of Gary Ladd, Deceased, Rita Malone, Appellant, v. Sherri Boswell, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of WoodWard County, Oklahoma. Honorable Erin Kirksey, Trial Judge. Appellant, Rita Malone (Malone) appeals the trial court’s Journal Entry of Judgment granting Appellee, Sherri Boswell’s (Boswell) Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. A review of the record shows the trial court’s decision is not erroneous as a matter of law and the trial court adequately explained it’s decision. Therefore, we summarily AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment pursuant to OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT RULE 1.202(d), 12 O.S.2021, Ch. 15, App.1. Opinion by DOWNING, P.J.; BELL, C.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. Aug. 15, 2025
122,360 – Vertical Exploration, LLC and VE Holdco, LLC, Appellants, v. AmericoOil, LLC and Corporation Commission of the State of Oklahoma, Appellees. Appeal from the Oklahoma Corporation Commission. Appellants, Vertical Exploration, LLC, and VE Holdco, LLC, appeal from an order of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission dismissing their application to terminate or modify a previously issued unitization order. Appellants own royalty interests in the unit area and a working interest in a new wellbore. Appellee, Amerigo Oil, LLC, owns 100% of the working interest in the unit and controls the unit’s Operating Committee. Several old stripper wells produce oil from one of the unitized common sources of supply. In 2021, pursuant to a farmout agreement with Amerigo, Appellants drilled a new well into the Bois d’Arc formation, which lies within the unitized interval area. It was the first new well drilled in the unit area since 1987. According to Appellants, the Bois d’Arc is a separate common source of supply and a largely unexploited reservoir containing an estimated 1,000,000 barrels of oil. Appellants assert the newly discovered oil will not be recovered by the existing unit wells. When negotiations with Amerigo for Appellants to drill additional wells into the Bois d’Arc formation broke down, Appellants filed the instant application with the Commission to terminate or amend the amended unitization order and the unit’s plan of unitization. Appellants argued the discovery of the reservoir constitutes a change of condition or change of knowledge of condition warranting amendment or termination of the unit. In dismissing Appellant’s application, the Commission held that Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC) 165:5-7-20(C) only allows a plan of unitization to be amended or terminated by application to the Commission if the plan does not provide for amendment or termination. Because the unitization plan at issue contains such a provision, the Commission held it was powerless to amend or terminate its prior unitization order. The Commission specifically relied on its prior ruling in a different case which contained the same dispositive issue as is present in this appeal. That previous ruling was reversed by Division I of this Court in West Ave. Inv., LLC v. Bixby Dutcher Sand Unit, Case No. 121,902 (Okla. Civ. App. Aug. 27, 2024) (unpublished), which this Division finds was correctly decided. We hold the Commission retains authority over its previously issued unitization order notwithstanding the presence of an amendment/termination provision in the unitization plan. The Commission cannot cede or delegate its authority to modify or terminate a plan of unitization to a unit’s operating committee. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Opinion by BELL, C.J.; DOWNING, P.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. Aug. 18, 2025
122,843 – Popular Construction, LLC, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Scissor-Tail Construction, LLC and Mid-Continent Casualty Company, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable William D. LaFortune, Trial Judge. Plaintiff/Appellant Popular Construction, LLC (“Popular”) filed a mechanic’s or materialmen’s lien in May 2019. Defendant/Appellee Scissor-Tail Construction, LLC (“Scissor-Tail”) discharged the lien by posting a surety bond guaranteed by Defendant/Appellee Mid-Continent Casualty Company (“Mid-Continent”). Popular sued Scissor-Tail on the underlying debt, but its initial petition did not name Mid-Continent as a party or seek to foreclose the bond. When Popular sought leave to amend its petition, Scissor-Tail and Mid-Continent argued a foreclosure claim was time-barred as a matter of law because Popular’s motion for leave to amend was filed more than a year after the lien’s filing. Popular, on the other hand, contended the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s emergency administrative orders, which were entered during the pendency of this case as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, tolled all rules, procedures, and deadlines from March 16, 2020 through May 15, 2020, rendering its motion timely. The trial court initially agreed with Popular and granted its motion for leave to amend. It later, however, reconsidered and vacated its prior ruling. According to the court, 42 O.S. §§172 and 177 are statutes of repose; the Supreme Court’s emergency orders did not toll statutes of repose; and, as a result, both the lien and the lien discharge bond expired as a matter of law prior to Popular’s motion for leave to amend. We REVERSE AND REMAND. Opinion by MITCHELL, J.; BELL, C.J., and DOWNING, P.J., concur. Aug. 18, 2025
Division IV
122,651 – Jacques Daniel Lake, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. State of Oklahoma, ex rel., Service Oklahoma, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Jackson County, Hon. Sommer K. Robbins, Trial Judge. Plaintiff, Jacques Daniel Lake, appeals the district court’s Final Order sustaining Service Oklahoma’s revocation of his driver’s license. Based on our review of the record and relevant law, we find Service Oklahoma failed to establish that Lake had been operating or was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol as required by 47 O.S. Supp. 2024 § 754(B). We conclude the district court erred in finding Service Oklahoma met its burden of proof and in sustaining the revocation of Lake’s driver’s license. The district court’s Final Order sustaining Service Oklahoma’s revocation of Lake’s driver’s license is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HUBER, J.; BARNES, P.J., and HIXON, V.C.J., concur. Aug. 13, 2025
121,790 (Companion with Case Nos. 122,403 and 122,404) – Curtis Mark Myers and Lou Thelen Kemp, Plaintiffs/Appellees, vs. Guy W. Jackson, Defendant/Appellant, and Larry Steve Myers, et al., Defendants, Danny Bob Myers, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Larry Steve Myers, et al., Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Anthony L. Bonner, Trial Judge. Guy W. Jackson appeals a judgment and order of confinement for civil indirect contempt. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we affirm. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, HIXON, V.C.J.; BARNES, P.J., and HUBER, J., concur. Aug. 19, 2025
122,403 (Companion with Case Nos. 121,790 and 122,404) – Lou Thelen Kemp, Plaintiff/Appellee, vs. Guy W. Jackson, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Anthony L. Bonner, Trial Judge. Defendant Guy W. Jackson, as Trustee Executor of the Patterson Revocable Living Trust (Jackson), appeals a Judgment and Order of Confinement for Civil Indirect Contempt following jury trial. Jackson asserts Plaintiff in the underlying action, Lou Thelen Kemp (Kemp Creditor), lacked standing to seek a contempt citation and asserts numerous errors over the course of the trial, including errors in the jury instructions, failure of the trial court to allow the jury to recommend his sentence, lack of a unanimous jury, and prosecutorial misconduct. We determine Kemp Creditor had standing to request a contempt citation and find no reversible error.We affirm the judgment of the trial court. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, HIXON, V.C.J.; BARNES, P.J., and HUBER, J., concur. Aug. 19, 2025
122,404 (Companion with Case Nos. 121,790 and 122,403) – Lou Thelen Kemp, Plaintiff/Appellee, vs. T. Matthew Smith, Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Anthony L. Bonner, Trial Judge. Non-party attorney T. Matthew Smith (Smith) appeals an order directing Smith to turnover $19,993.75 in legal fees paid by Defendant Guy Jackson (Jackson) in violation of receivership orders entered to protect assets to satisfy a substantial judgment against him. Smith asserts the trial court committed reversible error by entering the turnover order because the opposing party, Lou Thelen Kemp (Kemp Creditor),did not mail him a copy of her response brief on the issue. Smith also asserts the trial court erred by entering an order Smith did not review and approve. The record reflects Smith obtained the response, filed a reply, appeared at a hearing and argued the merits without seeking a continuance or raising any issue of lack of notice. Smith’s approval of the language in the trial court’s order was not required. We find no error and affirm the trial court’s order. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, HIXON, V.C.J.; BARNES, P.J., and HUBER, J., concur. Aug. 19, 2025