Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | April 19, 2023
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
120,061 – Nova Harp, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Billy D. Oliver, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Sequoyah County, Oklahoma. Honorable Gary Huggins, Trial Judge. Appellant (Billy Oliver) seeks review of the Amended Protective Order issued on November 16, 2021. Appellant asserts the district court issued a final protective order without a hearing and as a result the judgment is clearly erroneous. For the reasons provided, we affirm the decision of the Sequoyah County District Court. Opinion by GOREE, P.J.; SWINTON, J., and DOWNING, J., concur. April 14, 2023
120,119 – Tycoon Motorsports, LLC, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. EZ Trac Trailers, Inc., Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Marshall County, Oklahoma. Honorable Wallace Coppedge, Trial Judge. Defendant/Counter-Claimant/Appellant EZ Trac Trailers, Inc. (Seller) appeals the trial court’s September 29, 2021 Judgment in favor of Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant/Appellee Tycoon Motorsports, LLC (Buyer). After Buyer discovered that boat trailers purchased from Seller were defective, Buyer sued Seller for breach of warranty. Following a bench trial, the court found Seller had breached the implied warranty of merchantability and awarded damages. Seller appealed and this court affirmed in part, but remanded the case to the trial court with directions to re-determine damages in accordance with the relevant UCC provisions. This appeal follows the award of damages entered following remand. We affirm.. Opinion by SWINTON, J.; GOREE, P.J., and DOWNING, J., concur. April 14, 2023
120,315 – Harold Price and Patricia A. Price, Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendant/Appellants, v. LaFaver Fiberglass Corporation and Bobby Joe LaFaver, Individually, Defendants/Counter-Claimants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Wagnor County, Oklahoma. Honorable Douglas Kirkley, Trial Judge. Plaintiffs/Appellants Harold Price and Patricia A. Price filed suit alleging Defendants/Appellees LaFaver Fiberglass Corp. and Bobby Joe LaFaver’s (collectively, LaFaver) fiberglass operation constituted a nuisance. Prices also alleged claims for negligence, negligence per se, and breach of an earlier mediation agreement between the parties. LaFaver counterclaimed for intentional interference with business relations, interference with economic advantage, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, assault and battery, and breach of the mediation agreement. In 2019, the trial court granted summary judgment and attorney fees to LaFaver on Prices’ claims. In 2021, the trial court granted partial summary judgment and attorney fees to LaFaver on its counterclaims for abuse of process and malicious prosecution. LaFaver dismissed its remaining counterclaims. Prices appeal from the trial court’s April 4, 2022 Journal Entry of Judgment which memorialized earlier orders granting summary judgment in favor of LaFaver and awarding damages and attorney fees and costs on LaFaver’s counterclaims for abuse of process and malicious prosecution. The record on appeal shows the material facts are undisputed and LaFaver was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We therefore affirm. Opinion by SWINTON, J.; GOREE, P.J., and DOWNING, J., concur. April 14, 2023
120,724 – In the Matter of M.B., M.L.G., M.L.G., Jr., Alleged Deprived Children: Jessica Humprey, Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Charles Kevin Morrison, Trial Judge. Appellant, Jessica Humphrey (Mother), appeals from a judgment, entered after a jury verdict, terminating her parental rights as to M.G. Jr., M.G., and M.B. The State of Oklahoma (Appellee or State) filed a petition to have M.G. Jr., M.G., and M.B. adjudicated deprived based on the following legal grounds: lack of proper parental care or guardianship; abuse, neglect, or dependent; and drug endangered children. The children were adjudicated deprived on January 23, 2019. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to terminate Mother’s parental rights alleging the following grounds supported termination: possessing/using illegal drugs/ addiction; neglect; failure to provide a safe and stable home; threat of harm; exposure to inappropriate caregivers; and exposure to substance abuse. The jury found termination of Mother’s parental rights was appropriate as to each ground. On July 5, 2022, Mother’s parental rights were terminated as to M.G. Jr., M.G., and M.B. Mother challenges the termination of her parental rights on two grounds. First, Mother argues the State failed to present clear and convincing evidence that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the best interest of M.G. Jr., M.G., and M.B. Second, Mother argues the trial court erred in admitting expert opinion testimony through a lay witness. We have reviewed the record and are not persuaded by Mother’s arguments. Clear and convincing evidence supports termination and we AFFIRM. Opinion by DOWNING, J.; GOREE, P.J., and SWINTON, J., concur. April 14, 2023
Division II
120,203 – Anthony L. Cross, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Bobbi L. Metzger-Cross, Respondent/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Lynne McGuire, Trial Judge. Anthony L. Cross (Husband) appeals the trial court’s decree of dissolution of marriage. The main issues are whether the trial court erred by finding an antenuptial agreement entered by the parties was not enforceable and then in its subsequent valuation of the marital value of certain assets. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the decree. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by HIXON, J.; BARNES, V.C.J., and WISEMAN, P.J., concur. April 13, 2023
Division III
120,661 – In the Matter of the Adoption of: Baby Boy S., Minor Child, Daniel Morton and Karley Morton, Appellants, v. Colton Pickett, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Kurt G. Glassco, Trial Judge. Appellants, Daniel and Karley Morton (the “Mortons”), appeal three orders issued by the trial court in an action for pre adoption termination of parental rights. The Mortons appeal the Order denying termination of the parental rights of Appellee, Colton Pickett, the Order awarding custody of Baby Boy S. (the “child”), to Mr. Pickett, and the Order instituting a transition plan of custody of the child from the Mortons to Mr. Pickett. The child was born on June 24, 2021. The biological mother of the child, Kyrsten Spencer, filed this pre adoption termination case six days after the birth of the child. At that time, Ms. Spencer consented to termination of her parental rights. Mr. Pickett was not provided with notice of the pre adoption termination action. The trial court entered an order terminating the parental rights of an unnamed putative father, which allowed an adoption action to proceed. The Mortons were awarded temporary custody of the child and they subsequently filed and obtained an adoption in the State of Texas. Mr. Pickett filed a Petition to Vacate the Order terminating parental rights on November 9, 2021. The Petition to Vacate was confessed by the Mortons, and the matter proceeded to a hearing on termination of Mr. Pickett’s parental rights. The trial court found that, since the child is eligible for enrollment in the Chickasaw Nation, the Indian Child Welfare Act (“ICWA”), applied and, further held that Mr. Pickett’s parental rights should not be terminated. A best interests hearing followed. The trial court awarded custody of the child to Mr. Pickett and ordered a transition plan for custody to be exchanged from the Mortons to Mr. Pickett over an eleven week period. We have canvassed the record and find that all three of the appealed orders should be AFFIRMED. Opinion by PRINCE, P.J.; MITCHELL, C.J., and BELL, J., concur. April 14, 2023
Division IV
119,870 – Jayson Ernst and Vicki Ernst, Plaintiffs/Appellees, vs. Darryl F. Roberts, Defendant/Appellant, and Moneygram Payment Systems, Inc., Defendant. Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Canadian County, Hon. Paul Hesse, Trial Judge. Darryl F. Roberts appeals the denial of his motion to vacate both a liability-only summary judgment in favor of Jayson and Vicki Ernst and a later award of damages. We find no error in the court’s refusal to vacate the summary judgment. At the hearing on the motion to vacate, however, the trial court found that Roberts had waived his fraud claims regarding damages. But the record does not support the contention that Roberts waived the assertion that the Ernsts did not suffer the damages they were awarded at the damages hearing. As such we affirm the trial court’s judgment as to liability but vacate the damages award and remand for additional proceedings consistent with this opinion. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV by BLACKWELL, P.J.; FISCHER, J., and HIXON, J. (sitting by designation), concur.
April 12, 2023