Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | April 15, 2026
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
123,054 – Jeremy Sanders, Individually and as Member of GBR Cattle Company, L.L.C., and GBR Cattle Company, L.L.C., an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company, Plaintiffs, v. Oklahoma Secretary of State, Defendant, and Chere Kolar, Defendant/Appellee, and Tim C. Wishon, Personal Representative of the Estate of Bobby Eugene Wishon. Intervenor/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Kingfisher County, Oklahoma. Honorable Paul K. Woodward, Trial Judge. Appellant/Non-Party, Brian Sanders, filed a motion to vacate a final order on grounds it is void. The challenged order is not facially void and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. Matter of B. H., 2022 OK 80, ¶14, 519 P.3d 91. The order is therefore affirmed. Opinion by BELL, J.; SWINTON, P.J., and GOREE, J., concur.
Division II
122,646 — Brent P. Walck and Sandra D. Walck, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs/Appellees, vs. Travis Wells and Brittany Wells, Defendants/Appellants. Appeal from the District Court of McClain County, Hon. Charles Gray, Trial Judge. Travis and Brittany Wells (“Wellses”) appeal the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Brent P. Walck and Sandra D. Walck (“Walcks”) granting them a roadway and utility easement and directing the Wellses to remove a gate blocking the easement and denying their Motion for New Trial. The Wellses assert the district court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of the Walcks prior to discovery being conducted; erred by granting the easement generally; by granting a utility easement; by granting an easement which was not defined in size; and assert that even if an easement exists, the trial court erred by directing them to remove their gate. On review of the record on appeal, we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment determining the Walcks hold a roadway easement across the Wellses’ property. We reverse the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in the Walcks’ favor on their request for utility easement on this record and directing the Wellses to remove their gate. Therefore, while the trial court did not err by denying the motion for new trial on all issues presented, we find the trial court erred by denying the Wellses’ motion on the issue of the utility easement and the Walcks’ entitlement to removal of the gate, and remand for further proceedings on those issues. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by HIXON, C.J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. April 13, 2026
122,776 — Cash Management Systems, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company, Plaintiff/Appellee, vs. 1336 Ventures, LLC, an Oklahoma domestic limited liability company, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Cleveland County, Hon. Cory Ortega, Trial Judge. 1336 Ventures, LLC, appeals the district court’s Order granting Cash Management Systems, LCC, possession of approximately $5,820.00. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we affirm. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by HIXON, C.J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. April 13, 2026
Division III
122,852 – In the Matter of: P.P., Alleged Deprived Child: Hannah O’Dell, Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Kevin Gray, Trial Judge. Before the Court of Civil Appeals was the jury verdict and district court’s order terminating the parental rights of Hannah O’Dell (“Appellant”) to minor child (“Child”). Child was taken into emergency custody by DHS following an emergency room visit at which the seven-year-old tested positive for Fentanyl. After Appellant admittedly continued using Fentanyl and failed to engage in services required by her Individual Service Plan, the State moved to terminate her parental rights. The jury trial yielded a verdict in favor of terminating Appellant’s parental rights. On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals found no merit in Appellant’s argument that the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence: (a) that the State had made “active efforts” to prevent the breakup of an Indian family, evidence, as required by the Indian Child Welfare Act, and (b) that Appellant had failed to correct the conditions leading to the adjudication of Child as deprived. The Court of Civil Appeals further found that the State had offered evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, supported by the testimony of an expert witness that returning Child to Appellant’s custody would likely result in serious emotional or physical damage to Child. Further, the Court of Civil Appeals held that the district court’s decision to continue with proceedings in Appellant’s absence when she appeared hours late for trial, and on one day failed to appear completely, was not a violation of Appellant’s procedural due process rights. Consequently, the jury verdict and order terminating Appellant’s parental rights were AFFIRMED. Opinion by MITCHELL, J.; DOWNING, P.J., and PRINCE, V.C.J., concur.
123,204 – Andrew Eckstein and Diane Eckstein, Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. C. Wayne Farabough, a/k/a Wayne Farabough, d/b/a Perfection Homes by Wayne Farabough, Perfection Homes, and Perfection Homes, LLC; and Perfection Homes by Wayne Farabough, LLC, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company, Defendants/Appellants. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Daman H. Cantrell, Trial Judge. Before the Court of Civil Appeals was the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs/Appellees on their causes of action against Defendants/Appellants. The plaintiffs had sued defendants for claims relating to a transaction in which Appellants had sold certain real property to plaintiffs. The lawsuit was pending for five years, and after the discovery deadline had passed the plaintiffs filed their motion for summary judgment. Appellants filed a combined response and motion to stay, arguing that they could not refute the plaintiffs’ motion without being granted leave to depose them out of time (which Appellants separately requested). The district court did not rule on Appellant’s motion to stay prior to expiration of their deadline; however, it subsequently did stay summary judgment proceedings in an attempt to allow the parties to resolve various discovery disputes. When the parties informed the district court that they had not reached a resolution, the district court granted plaintiffs’ motion. On appeal, Appellants argued that the district court erred by failing to give them an opportunity to respond to plaintiffs’ motion. The Court of Civil Appeals disagreed and affirmed the district court’s ruling, holding that Appellants had received the statutory fifteen days in which to file a response. The stay entered by the district court was entered after Appellants’ deadline had expired, and further the district court’s ruling had implicitly denied Appellants’ motion for leave to depose plaintiffs out of time, without which Appellants had acknowledged they could not refute plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. AFFIRMED. Opinion by MITCHELL, J.; DOWNING, P.J., and PRINCE, V.C.J., concur. April 8, 2026
121,916 – Frank R. Montero, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Tulsa Airports Improvement Trust, a\k\a T.A.I.T., Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Douglass E. Drummond, Trial Judge. Frank R. Montero (Plaintiff/Appellant) has appealed the trial court’s Orders granting the Tulsa Airport Improvement Trust’s (Defendant/Appellee) (“TAIT”) Motion for Attorney Fees, denying Montero’s Motion for Sanctions, and denying Montero’s Motion to Vacate Attorney Fee Judgment. Mr. Montero sued TAIT for breach of contract and injunctive relief following its termination of Mr. Montero’s Private Hanger Ground Sublease Agreement at the Tulsa Riverside Airport. TAIT terminated Mr. Montero’s Lease after Mr. Montero failed to allow an inspection of his hangar per the terms of the Lease, resulting in TAIT declaring Mr. Montero in Default. The trial court, ultimately, granted Default Judgment in favor of TAIT following Mr. Montero’s failure to appear for a Status Conference. Mr. Montero has not, however, appealed the underlying substantive ruling. Based upon our review, WE FIND NO ERROR in the trial court’s Orders awarding attorney fees, denying sanctions, and denying the Motion to Vacate the award of attorney fees. Opinion by PRINCE, V.C.J.; DOWNING, P.J., and MITCHELL, J., CONCUR.
123,646 – Joseph Campbell, Plaintiff/Appellee, vs. Scott Allen Hughes, Mary Doe, Tim Doe, Donna Doe, Dave Hardin, Joe Huerra, Defendants, and Verifeye, LLC, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable William D. LaFortune, Trial Judge. Appellant, Verifeye, LLC (Verifeye) appeals the trial court’s Order denying Verifeye’s Motion for Sanctions and Application for Attorney Fees and Costs. Verifeye’s motion was filed after Appellee, Joseph Campbell (Campbell) filed a Partial Dismissal without Prejudice dismissing Verifeye from the current lawsuit. A review of the record shows there was no reversible error of law, the trial court adequately explained its decision, and that such decision was not an abuse of discretion. Therefore, we summarily AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment PURSUANT TO OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT RULE 1.202(d) AND (e), 12 O.S.2021, Ch. 15, App.1 Opinion by DOWNING, P.J.; PRINCE, V.C.J., and MITCHELL, J., CONCUR.
Division IV
122,913 – Scott Baker, Plaintiff/Appellant, and Bonnie Baker, Plaintiff, vs. Law Offices of C. Wayne Bailey, PLLC, Green Country Law Group, LLLP, Green Country Law Group, PLLC, and Charles Bailey, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Muskogee County, Hon. Laura Farris, Associate District Judge. Scott Baker appeals both the court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants and the court’s denial of his motion to vacate. Upon review, the grant of summary judgment and the denial of the motion to vacate are both hereby affirmed. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV by BLACKWELL, J.; BARNES, J., and HUBER, J., concur. April 8, 2026
122,693 – Joshua G. Miester, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. GEICO Casualty Company, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Don Andrews, Trial Judge. Joshua G. Miester, a resident of Missouri, appeals from an order of the district court sustaining GEICO Casualty Company’s motion to dismiss Mr. Miester’s petition in which he alleged a claim against GEICO under a Missouri policy of automobile insurance. The trial court sustained GEICO’s motion to dismiss because the court lacked personal jurisdiction over GEICO. We conclude the district court correctly sustained GEICO’s motion to dismiss. Accordingly, we affirm the order dismissing the petition. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by BARNES, J.; HUBER, J., concurs, and BLACKWELL, P.J., concurs in result. April 9, 2026
122,512 – Mukti Asish Patel, Petitioner/Appellee, vs. Asish Vaghjee Patel, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Barry L. Hafar, Trial Judge. Asish Vaghjee Patel (Husband) appeals the district court’s Journal Entry, Decree of Dissolution of Marriage, and Order denying Husband’s Motion for New Trial and First and Second Amendments thereto. Husband’s appeal focuses on the district court’s division of the marital property, arguing the division of the marital property was not equitable and was error. After review, we conclude the district court abused its discretion when it awarded the parties’ interest in the Hotel exclusively to Wife. Accordingly, we modify the Decree of Dissolution of Marriage and the Journal Entry to provide that the parties’ interest in the Hotel shall be divided equally between Husband and Wife. In all other regards, the Decree of Dissolution of Marriage and the Journal Entry are affirmed. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HUBER, J.; BLACKWELL, P.J., and BARNES, J., concur. April 14, 2026