Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | Dec. 7, 2022
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
119,702 – David Sergeant, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Lila Robertson, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Delaware County, Oklahoma. Honorable David Crutchfield, Trial Judge. Defendant/Appellant, Lila Robertson, appeals from the trial court’s Judgment in small claims court granting Plaintiff/Appellee, David Sergeant, possessory right to certain property in Delaware County. Sergeant filed an Entry and Detainer Affidavit and Order on January 13, 2021. The trial court held a hearing on March 2, 2021, and ruled in favor of Sergeant, giving Robertson two months to remove her personal belongings from the property. Robertson filed a Motion to Dismiss on April 30, 2021, that the trial court denied on May 3, 2021. Robertson appeals both rulings. Only a partial history of the facts can be gleaned from the record because no trial transcript was made of the hearing and the documents considered by the trial court at the hearing were not made part of the record below. Upon review of the record before us, we AFFIRM. Opinion by DOWNING, J.; BELL, P.J., and GOREE, J., concur. Dec. 1, 2022
120,406 – In the Matter of G.G., Alleged Deprived Child, Justice Burks, Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma. Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Garfield County, Oklahoma. Honorable Tom Newby, Trial Judge. The parental rights of Justice Burks, Mother of G.G., alleged deprived child, were terminated by court order on April 11, 2022, after a parental rights termination non-jury trial conducted on March 30, 2022. The bases for termination included in the termination order were failure to correct the condition(s) which led to the child’s deprived adjudication under 10A O.S. Supp.2015 §1-4-904(B)(5), termination of the parent’s right to another child, under 10A O.S. Supp.2015 §1-4-904(B)(6), with failure to correct the conditions that led to the deprived status of the other child, and the child having been removed from the parent’s home for six (6) out of the last twelve (12) months, 10A O.S. Supp.2015 §1-4-904(B)(17). The district court found it was in the child’s best interests to terminate Mother’s parental rights. We find the termination order is not supported by the record. This cause is reversed and remanded. Opinion by GOREE, J.; BELL, P.J., concurs and DOWNING J., dissents. Dec. 1, 2022
Division II
119,667 – Glenda P. Grayson, Petitioner/Appellant, vs. Gerdau Ameristeel US, Inc.; Indemnity Insurance Company of North America; and The Oklahoma Workers’ Compensation Court of Existing Claims, Respondents/Appellees. Glenda Grayson appeals a judgment from the Workers’ Compensation Court of Existing Claims permitting her employer, Gerdau Ameristeel, and insurance provider, Indemnity Insurance of North America (collectively, Ameristeel or employer), to cease paying for certain pain medication that Grayson claims is contemplated in her order for continuing medical maintenance. The employer claims the medication is outside the applicable order, and the court below agreed. However, because the court’s reading of the relevant order was too narrow, and because the court relied exclusively on a case with much different facts, we reverse and remand for consistent proceedings. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II by BLACKWELL, J; BARNES, J. (sitting by designation), concurs, and WISEMAN, P.J., dissents. Dec. 5, 2022
119,830 – In the Matter of the Adoption of P.R.M.G.: Robert Reed, Appellant, vs. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from an order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. K. Nikki Kirkpatrick, Trial Judge. Robert Reed appeals a trial court order finding that PRMG, a minor child, is eligible for adoption without his consent. The issue presented is whether the trial court’s finding of eligibility for adoption without Reed’s consent is supported by clear and convincing evidence. For the reasons stated in our Opinion, we hold that the trial court’s order finding PRMG eligible for adoption without Reed’s consent is supported by clear and convincing evidence, and we affirm. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; BLACKWELL, J., and HIXON, J. (sitting by designation), concur. Dec. 2, 2022
Division III
120,649 – The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, National Association, As Successor-In-Interest to all Permitted Successors and Assigns of JPMorgan Chase Bank, as Trustee for Registered Holders of Salomon Brothers Mortgage Securities VII, Inc., Mortgage Pass Through Certificates, Series 2001-2, Plaintiff/Appellee, V. Charles W. Wiseley, Spouses of Charles W. Wiseley; Deanna Wiseley, Spouse of Deanna Wiseley, Toni A. Brasfield, and State of Oklahoma ex rel Oklahoma Tax Commission, and John Doe as Occupant of Premises, and Jane Doe as Occupant of Premises; Defendants, and David B. Brasfield, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable William D. LaFortune, Trial Judge. Defendant/Appellant “Brasfield” executed a note in the amount of $60,450. To secure repayment of the note, Brasfield executed a mortgage pledging his home as security. Brasfield conveyed the home to Defendants “the Wiseleys” via general warranty deed, and the morgagee provided Brasfield with documents to assign the note to the Wiseleys. The Wiseleys made regular payments under the note before defaulting. Plaintiff/Appellee “Bank” filed a foreclosure action against Brasfield and the Wiseleys. Brasfield filed counterclaims including a wrongful foreclosure claim and claims for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Truth in Lending Act. These are the only claims at issue. Bank filed a motion for summary judgment on Brasfield’s counterclaims which the trial court granted. Brasfield appealed. We affirm the trial court’s order under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, finding Bank is not a debt collector as defined by the act because it is attempting to collect its own debt. Regarding the Truth in Lending Act claim, there is a question of fact as to whether Brasfield assigned the note to the Wiseleys which would be required for Brasfield to have no liability. Regarding the wrongful foreclosure claim, we infer the trial court determined there was no such cause of action in Oklahoma. While the law is limited on this area of law, there are cases in Oklahoma in which this cause of action has been acknowledged. There is, however, a question of fact as to whether the note was adequately assigned. This, being a disputed question of material fact, precludes summary judgment on this claim. We therefore AFFIRM IN PART, REVERSE IN PART AND REMAND for further proceedings. Opinion by MITCHELL, V.C.J.; PRINCE, P.J., and SWINTON, J., concur. Dec. 6, 2022
Division IV
120,148 (Companion with Case No. 119,114) – Robin Carter and Kimberly Carter, Plaintiffs/Appellants, vs. Randy C. Parsons, Danny Childers, and Kailey Jane Fish, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Pottawatomie County, Honorable John G. Canavan, Trial Judge. Plaintiffs Robin Carter and Kimberly Carter appeal district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants Danny Childers and his daughter Kailey Fish. Defendants Childers and Fish sought summary judgment on grounds that Childers was a bona fide purchaser of the Carter home from Parsons following foreclosure and had paid fair and valuable consideration for the real property and the personal property on the premises. On our own motion, we have inquired into our jurisdiction over this appeal. The Carters have failed to demonstrate why their appeal from the district court’s January 11, 2022 journal entry granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants Childers and Fish should not be dismissed for lack of a final or otherwise appealable order. For that reason, we must dismiss this appeal. DISMISSED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV by FISCHER, C.J; BARNES, P.J., and HIXON, J., concur. Nov. 30, 2022