Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | April 22, 2026
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
123,286 – Everett O. Horn, Jr., Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Zeeco, Inc., Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Wagoner County, Oklahoma. Honorable Douglas Kirkley, Trial Judge. Title 12 O.S. 2021 §1438 of the Oklahoma Citizens Participation Act treats movants and non-movants differently with respect to the availability of attorney fees and costs. The disparity does not render the statute unconstitutional because, applying the rationale in Thayer v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 1980 OK 95, 613 P.2d 1041, the legislative purpose of deterring lawsuits that impede free speech serves a compelling public interest. AFFIRMED. Opinion by GOREE, J., SWINTON, P.J., and MITCHELL, J., (sitting by designation) concur. April 20, 2026
123,498 – Javier Cruz and Susanna Hernandez Cruz, Plaintiff/Appellants, v. Isaiah Pichardo, Defendant/Appellee, Arnoldo Pichardo and Entrust Greenleaf Holding, LLC, d/b/a Emerald Roots, an Oklahoma Corporation, Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of Garvin County, Oklahoma. Plaintiffs/Appellants, Javier and Susana Cruz, Florida residents, sued Defendant/Appellee, Isaiah Pichardo, and other defendants for breach of an oral contract, fraud, unjust enrichment, partition, and other claims. Plaintiffs claim Isaiah’s brother, Arnoldo Pichardo and his company Entrust Greenleaf Holdings, LLC d/b/a Emerald Roots, an Oklahoma corporation, persuaded Plaintiffs to construct a commercial greenhouse to cultivate medical marijuana on Isaiah’s land, to pay operating expenses, and to retain the profits. Plaintiffs assert Arnoldo Pichardo agreed to take care of the crop when Plaintiffs returned to Florida, but Arnoldo neglected the greenhouse, destroyed the crop, and denied that Plaintiffs had any interest in the improvement or profits. Isaiah moved for summary judgment in his favor on the basis that the alleged oral agreement was “illegal” under Oklahoma medical-marijuana laws and the greenhouse was a removable “trade fixture.” The trial court held the contract was illegal, the greenhouse was a trade fixture, and Plaintiffs had 120 days to remove the greenhouse. The court also held Plaintiffs did not own any interest in Isaiah’s land, Plaintiffs were not entitled to partition, and the court quieted title to the land in Isaiah. After de novo review, this Court affirms the trial court’s decision to permit Isaiah to plead the affirmative defense of illegality through a motion for summary judgment and affirms the trial court’s determination that the oral contract is illegal and unenforceable. The remainder of the trial court’s determinations in its order and journal entry of judgment are affirmed under Rule 1.202(d), Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules, 12 O.S. 2021 Ch. 15, App., Opinion by BELL, J., SWINTON, P.J., and GOREE, J., concur. April 20, 2026
Division II
123,153 – In re the Marriage of: Kori Zibell, Petitioner/Appellant, vs. Michael Zibell, Respondent/Appellee. Proceeding to review an Order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Barry Hafar, Trial Judge. Kori Zibell (Mother) appeals the district court’s April 2024 order granting Michael Zibell’s (Father) motion to modify child custody. Mother alleges the district court erred by modifying custody from her having sole custody to the parties having joint custody with Father as the primary custodian and final decision-maker. Because the record fails to show a material change in circumstances occurred, as required by Gibbons v. Gibbons, 1968 OK 77, 442 P.2d 482 to support a custody modification, the portion of the order modifying custody is reversed. The case is remanded to the district court with instructions for the district court to enter an order awarding Mother sole custody of the child consistent with this Opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II by HIXON, C.J., and WISEMAN, P.J., concur. April 17, 2026
Division III
123,051 – Oil Field Production, Inc., Plaintiffs/Appellants, vs. State of Oklahoma, ex. rel. Oklahoma Corporation Commission – Oil and Gas Conservation Divisions, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the Oklahoma Corporation Commission. Administrative Law Judge. Oil Field Production Inc. (Oil Field) appeals the Oklahoma Corporation Commission’s (OCC) Final Order Granting Motion to Dismiss (Order) of Oil Field’s Amended Application to Vacate Final Orders (Application). After a review of the record and the applicable law, we AFFIRM. Opinion by DOWNING, P.J.; PRINCE, V.C.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. April 17, 2026
123,296 – John Givins, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. City of Chandler, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Lincoln County, Oklahoma. Honorable Joseph Dobry, Trial Judge. Appellant, John Givens (Givens) appeals from the trial court’s August 6, 2025 Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Order). After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we AFFIRM. Opinion by DOWNING, P.J.; PRINCE, V.C.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. April 17, 2026
123,466 – In the Matter of: L.R.M., Alleged Deprived Child, Mario Lopez-Diaz, Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Le Flore County, Oklahoma. Honorable Jennifer H. McBee, Trial Judge. Mario Lopez-Diaz (Father) appeals the trial court’s September 16, 2025 Order Terminating Parental Rights to L.R.M. We have reviewed the record and applicable law and are not persuaded by Father’s argument. Clear and convincing evidence supports termination. We AFFIRM. Opinion by DOWNING, J.; MITCHELL, J., concurs and PRINCE, V.C.J., specially concurs. April 20, 2026
123,034 – Pamela Wittrock, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Dale Gooden & Steve Gooden, Defendants/Appellants. Appeal from the District Court of Kingfisher County, Oklahoma. Honorable Paul K. Woodward, Trial Judge. Dale Gooden (Defendant/Appellant) has appealed the trial court’s grant of Pamela Wittrock’s (Plaintiff/Appellee) Countermotion for Summary Judgment and Application for Attorney Fees and Costs. Pamela initiated the underlying action after her brother, Dale, transferred funds from Carlene Gooden’s (mother of Pamela and Dale) Payable on Death (“POD”) bank account (of which Pamela was the sole beneficiary) to a separate bank account which did not contain a POD provision. Dale maintained, however, that he had authority to move the funds because he was acting as his mother’s Attorney-in-Fact pursuant to Carlene’s previously executed Durable Power of Attorney (“POA”). The trial court, ultimately, concluded the undisputed facts demonstrated Dale lacked authority to transfer the funds from his mother’s POD bank account to a separate account. The trial court also awarded Pamela reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to 58 O.S. § 3017. We find no error in the trial court’s Orders and, accordingly, AFFIRM. Opinion by PRINCE, V.C.J.; DOWNING, P.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. April 21, 2026
123,085 – In the Matter of: J.L.T., Alleged Deprived Child, Lindsey Tailor, Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Pontotoc County, Oklahoma. Honorable Lori L. Jackson, Trial Judge. Appellant, Lindsey Tailor (Mother) appeals the trial court’s April 2, 2025 order terminating her parental rights to J.L.T. Mother also appeals the trial court’s Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law wherein the trial court determined Kristi Crawford (Crawford) was qualified to testify as an expert witness. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we AFFIRM. Opinion by DOWNING, P.J.; PRINCE, V.C.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. April 21, 2026
123,245 – Pamela Wittrock, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Dale Gooden & Steve Gooden, Defendants/Appellants. Appeal from the District Court of Kingfisher County, Oklahoma. Honorable Paul K. Woodward, Trial Judge. Steven Gooden (Defendant/Appellant) has appealed the trial court’s denial of his Application for Attorney Fees and Costs following the trial court’s grant of Pamela Wittrock’s (Plaintiff/Appellee) Countermotion for Summary Judgment. Steven moved for an award of attorney fees and costs pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2011.1, alleging Pamela’s claims against him were frivolous because his brother and Co-Defendant, Dale Gooden, should have been the sole Defendant to Pamela’s claims. The trial court denied Steven’s request for attorney fees and costs, finding Pamela’s claims were neither frivolous nor proven knowingly false. Based upon our review of the appellate record, we find no error in the trial court’s denial of Steven’s Application for Attorney Fees and Costs and, accordingly, AFFIRM. Opinion by PRINCE, V.C.J.; DOWNING, P.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. April 21, 2026
123,571 – Anthony C. Duenner, Trustee of the Stephen R. Duenner Living Trust dated April 19, 2007, Petitioner/Appellee. v. William R. Satterfield, an individual and as trustee of the Riverside Revocable Living Trust Dated August 14, 2016, a/k/a the Riverside Trust, a/k/a the Riverside Revocable Living Trust Dated July 25, 2016, a/k/a the Riverside Revocable Trust Dated August 14, 2018, a/k/a the Riverside Revocable Living Trust, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Kurt G. Glassco, Trial Judge. The Respondent/Appellant, William R. Satterfield, individually and as Trustee of the Riverside Revocable Living Trust (“Satterfield”), commenced this appeal on November 21, 2025. This Court entered a Show Cause Order on March 19, 2026, noting that this appeal stems from a consolidated proceeding that remains pending in the trial court and directed the Parties to show cause as to why this appeal should not be dismissed as premature. The Parties responded and, after a review of the responses, we find that this appeal is premature and should be DISMISSED. Opinion by PRINCE, V.C.J.; DOWNING, P.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. April 21, 2026
Division IV
123,366 – In the Matter of C.N., alleged deprived child: Ricky Nickleberry, Appellant, vs. The State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Proceeding to review an Order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Kevin C. McCray, Special Judge. Ricky Nickelberry appeals from the trial court’s order adjudicating his minor child, C.N., deprived. Upon review, we find that the court’s decision was supported by a preponderance of the evidence and thereby affirm. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV by BLACKWELL, P.J.; BARNES, J., and HUBER, J., concur. April 15, 2026
122,681 – Jeffrey M. Massad, Trustee of the Mary A. Frow Revocable Trust, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Michael T. Frow, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. R. Trent Pipes, Trial Judge. This appeal arises from a Forcible Entry and Detainer trial. Michael T. Frow seeks review of the trial court’s Order finding the Appellee is entitled to a judgment for possession of the property in question. Because no reversible error of law appears and the opinion or findings of fact and conclusions of law of the trial court adequately explain the decision, the trial court’s Order is affirmed under Oklahoma Supreme Court Rule 1.202(d). AFFIRMED UNDER RULE 1.202(d). Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by BARNES, J.; BLACKWELL, P.J., and HUBER, J., concur. April 20, 2026