Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | April 2, 2025
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
121,666 – In Re the Marriage of: Whitney Ruth Beard Alvis, Petitioner/Appellee, v. James Michael Alvis, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of McClain County, Oklahoma. Honorable Leah Edwards, Trial Judge. Father appeals the trial court’s denial of attorney fees and costs in a post-decree custody proceeding involving his middle child [Child]. He argues the trial court abused its discretion in denying his request for attorney fees and costs related to Mother’s motion to modify visitation of Child. We AFFIRM. Opinion by GOREE, P.J.; SWINTON, J., and PRINCE, J., concur. March 26, 2025
122,235 – In the Matter of R.S. and K.S., Deprived Children, Joshua Smith, Father, Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Julie Doss, Trial Judge. Appellant, Joshua Smith (Father), seeks review of the termination of his parental rights to children, R.S. and K.S. After a four-day trial in April 2024, the jury unanimously voted to terminate Father’s parental rights to both children. We AFFIRM. Opinion by GOREE, P.J.; SWINTON, J., and PRINCE, J., concur. March 26, 2025
122,345 – Susan Hull Khalil, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Metropolitan Life, a/k/a Metrolife Insurance Company, Defendant/Appellee, and Metlife Investment Management, Metlife Inc, Mortgage electronic Registration Systems Inc., Anne Sullivan Deprimio, and Any and All Unknown Parties who may claim an interest, Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable William D. LaFortune, Trial Judge. Susan Hull Khalil (Plaintiff/Appellant) has appealed the trial court’s grant of Metropolitan Life’s (Defendant/Appellee) (hereinafter “MetLife”) Motion to Dismiss pursuant to the Oklahoma Citizen Participation Act, 12 O.S. § 1430, et seq. Ms. Khalil alleged the trial court erred in its application of the OCPA, contending her lawsuit was not “based on, related to, or in response to” MetLife’s Foreclosure Petition, and that she sufficiently plead prima facie claims for negligence and fraud. We find no error in the trial courts dismissal and we AFFIRM the trial court’s Order dismissing Ms. Khalil’s claims with prejudice under the OCPA. Opinion by PRINCE, J.; GOREE, P.J., concurs and SWINTON, J., specially concurring. March 26, 2025
122,671 – In the Matter of Grandparental Visitation Rights to G.C.L., a minor child, Vivian Corene Page, Appellant vs. Charles Humbert III and Edith Humbert, Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Pottawatomie County, Oklahoma. Honorable Emily Mueller, Trial Judge. Biological grandmother/Appellant, Vivian Corene Page, appeals an Order of Dismissal which dismissed her Petition for Grandparent Visitation to a minor child, G.C.L. The parental rights of the child’s natural parents were terminated and Ms. Page sought visitation with the grandchild. The child was subsequently adopted and the adoptive parents moved to dismiss Ms. Page’s petition for visitation. The trial court granted the Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that Ms. Page’s status as a grandmother of the child was terminated along with her son’s status as the child’s father, and, in addition, Ms. Page delayed prosecution of her petition until after the conclusion of the adoption action. We have reviewed the record and law and find that the Order of Dismissal should be REVERSED and the matter REMANDED for further proceedings. Opinion by PRINCE, J.; GOREE, P.J., and SWINTON, J., concur. March 26, 2025
Division II
121,928 – B.S. Melton, LLC, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Budz 4 Le$$, LLC; Capital Management Solutions, LLC; Brad Brinkman; and Mike Smith, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Richard Ogden, District Judge. The plaintiff and appellant, B.S. Melton (Melton), appeals the court’s decision to direct a verdict in favor of the defendant and appellee, Capital Management Solutions (CMS). Upon review, we find that the court properly directed a verdict in CMS’s favor and thereby affirm. AFFIMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II by BLACKWELL, J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. March 26, 2025
Division III
121,765 – In re the Marriage of: Bobby Kenemore, Jr., Petitioner/Appellee, v. Karolina Kenemore, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Garfield County, Oklahoma. Honorable Jason Seigars, Trial Judge. At issue is whether the trial court’s judgments in a decree of dissolution of marriage are clearly contrary to the weight of the evidence. Following a review of the record, we hold as follows: Wife is judicially estopped from arguing, for the first time on appeal, that Husband should not have custody or visitation of the child; some of the restrictions on Wife’s international travel with the child are arbitrary and are hereby reversed; the court’s property division is equitable and supported by evidence, with the exception of the tractor which is a marital asset. The issue of equitable distribution of the tractor is remanded; the parties’ incomes used to calculate Husband’s child support obligation were established under the statutory framework and is affirmed; the award of spousal support for Wife is not supported by the evidence and this portion of the order is reversed; the court’s finding the wife was in indirect contempt of court is affirmed and our de novo review of the law reveals no errors in the proceedings or sentencing; the court’s order directing the parties to pay their own attorney fees is clearly contrary to the weight of the evidence; and the wife’s request for Husband to pay at least part of the cost of her interpreter should have been granted. The order of the court is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Opinion by MITCHELL, J.; BELL, C.J., and DOWNING, P.J., concur. March 25, 2025
122,098 – Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Flintco, LLC, Defendant/Appellant, and Worth Group Architects, P.C., Specified Technologies, Inc., ABC Entities I-X and John Does I-X, Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of Bryan County, Oklahoma. Honorable Mark Campbell, Trial Judge. Defendant/Appellant, Flintco, LLC (Flintco), appeals from the district court’s order denying Flintco’s motion to compel arbitration in this fraud action brought by Plaintiff/Appellee, Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma (Nation), against Flintco and other defendants. In 2005, Flintco agreed to provide construction management services to Nation under a Construction Management Contract (Contract). The Contract includes a dispute resolution clause (Clause), which provides, in part, “Any Claim arising under this Agreement . . . shall be submitted to a dispute resolution conference, and if the dispute is not resolved in conference, then to Mediation. If the dispute is not resolved in Mediation it will be submitted to binding arbitration.” On October 31, 2023, Nation sued Flintco alleging Flintco purposefully and intentionally failed to construct certain projects as required by applicable code requirements and the Contract, failed to disclose to and intentionally concealed the projects did not comply with the Contract, and made false representations that the completed projects met all Contract requirements. Flintco filed a motion to compel arbitration alleging the fraud claim related to and arose from Flintco’s performance under the Contract and therefore Nation is obligated to arbitrate this claim under the Clause. The district court denied Flintco’s motion to compel arbitration, finding Nation has alleged fraud, and an allegation of fraud was not contemplated by the Clause’s language. On appeal, Flintco asserts the district court erred when it denied the motion to compel arbitration because the Clause is valid, enforceable, and irrevocable; Nation agreed to resolve any “claim” and/or “dispute” under the Clause; the frauds claim are encompassed within the language of the Clause; and Nation did not allege it was “fraudulently induced” to enter the Clause. After de novo review of the record, we affirm the district court’s determination that Nation’s fraud claims are not within the scope of the Clause and AFFIRM the court’s decision to deny the motion to compel. Opinion by BELL, C.J.; DOWNING, P.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. March 25, 2025
122,281 – Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Worth Group Architects, P.C., Defendant/Appellant, and Flintco, LLC, Specified Technologies, ABC Entities I-X and John Doe I-X, Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of Bryan County, Oklahoma. Honorable Mark Campbell, Trial Judge. This is an appeal by Defendant/Appellant Worth Group Architects, P.C. (Worth Group), from the district court’s order denying its motion to stay action and to compel arbitration in this fraud action brought by Plaintiff/Appellee, Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma (Nation), against Worth Group and other defendants. Worth Group sought to compel Nation to arbitrate its fraud claims in accordance with a dispute resolution clause (Clause) contained in a 2005 Construction Management Contract (Contract) between Defendant Flintco, LLC and Nation. The Clause provides, in part, “Any Claim arising under this Agreement . . . shall be submitted to a dispute resolution conference, and if the dispute is not resolved in conference, then to Mediation. If the dispute is not resolved in Mediation it will be submitted to binding arbitration.” Nation sued Worth Group, Flintco, and other defendants alleging Worth Group served as the architect/engineer on the project in which Flintco served as construction manager, and Worth Group purposefully and intentionally failed to construct certain projects as required by applicable code requirements and the Contract; failed to disclose to and intentionally concealed from Nation that the projects did not comply with the Contract; and made false representations that the completed projects met all Contract requirements. Worth Group filed a motion to compel Nation to arbitrate its fraud claims against Worth Group. The district court denied Worth Group’s motion to compel arbitration, finding Nation has alleged fraud, and an allegation of fraud was not contemplated by the Clause’s language. On appeal, Worth Group asserts the district court erred when it denied the motion to compel arbitration because the fraud claim against Worth Group is intertwined with Nation’s claim against Flintco; the fraud claim falls within the scope of the Clause; and Nation did not allege the Clause was procured through fraud. After de novo review of the record, we AFFIRM the district court’s determination that Nation’s fraud claim is not within the scope of the Clause and affirm the court’s decision to deny Worth Group’s motion to compel. Opinion by BELL, C.J.; DOWNING, P.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. March 25, 2025
122,531 – In the Matter of: S.W., Alleged Deprived Child, Tyesha Hale, Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Grady County, Oklahoma. Honorable Z. Joseph Young, Trial Judge. Tyesha Hale (Mother) appeals from an order following a jury trial terminating her parental rights from her minor child, S.W. We have reviewed the record and are not persuaded by Mother’s argument. Clear and convincing evidence supports termination. We AFFIRM. Opinion by DOWNING, P.J.; BELL, C.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. March 28, 2025
Division IV
122,453 – Metro Imaging Partners, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Brian C. Hargrove, P.C., Defendant/Appellee, and Gainsco Auto Insurance Agency, Inc., and Kristen West, Additional Defendant. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Catherine M. Burton, Trial Judge. Metro Imaging Partners appeals the district court’s order dismissing Brian C. Hargrove, P.C. (Law Firm) as a defendant from the case. The issue is whether the district court correctly found it lacked personal jurisdiction over Law Firm. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we reverse the order and remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, V.C.J.; BARNES, P.J., and HUBER, J., concur. March 27, 2025