Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | April 24, 2024
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
121.174 – Okie Growers Family Farms, LLP, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Partnership; Glen Walls, an individual and partner of Okie Growers Family Farms, LLP; and Terry Cooper, an individual and partner of Okie Growers Family Farms, LLP, Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants/Appellants, v. Ryan Cooper, an individual and partner of Okie Growers Family Farms, LLP, Defendant/Counter-Claimant/Appellee, Appeal from the District Court of Kingfisher County, Oklahoma. Honorable Lance E. Schneiter, Trial Judge. Plaintiffs/Appellants Okie Growers Family Farms, LLP, Glen Walls, and Terry Cooper (collectively, Plaintiffs) appeal from judgment entered following a bench trial of Plaintiffs’ claims relating to a dispute over the winding up of an unsuccessful marijuana grow operation begun by Walls, Terry Cooper, and Defendant/Appellee Ryan Cooper. The findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the trial court adequately explain the decision and we find no reversible error of law. We therefore affirm by summary opinion pursuant to Oklahoma Supreme Court Rule 1.202(d). OPINION BY SWINTON, P.J.; BELL, V.C.J.; and PRINCE, J., concur.
121,291 – Rebecca Darlene Jackson, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Debbie Jo Jackson, Respondent/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Ludi Leitch, Trial Judge. Petitioner/Appellant, Rebecca Darlene Jackson, filed a Petition for Protective Order on behalf of herself and her minor child, A.L., against Rebecca Jackson’s mother, Debbie Jo Jackson. The Petition alleged that Rebecca Jackson was the victim of Debbie Jackson’s alleged harassment and A.L. was the victim of Debbie Jackson’s alleged kidnapping. After conducting a hearing on the matter, the trial court denied the Protective Order and found the Petition was filed frivolously and without a victim. Rebecca Jackson appealed the trial court’s April 23, 2023 Order. Upon review of the record and relevant authority, we find no error in the trial court’s Order or additional findings of fact. Accordingly, the trial court’s Order is AFFIRMED. Opinion by PRINCE, J.; BELL, V.C.J., and SWINTON, P.J. concur. April 17, 2024
121,292 – Rebecca Darlene Jackson, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Amanda Grace Danforth, Respondent/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Deborah Ludi Leitch, Trial Judge. Petitioner/Appellant, Rebecca Darlene Jackson, filed a Petition for Protective Order on behalf of herself and her minor child, A.L., against Rebecca Jackson’s cousin, Amanda Grace Danforth. The Petition alleged that Rebecca Jackson was the victim of Amanda Danforth’s alleged harassment and A.L. was the victim of Amanda Danforth’s alleged kidnapping. After conducting a hearing on the matter, the trial court denied the Protective Order and found the Petition was filed frivolously and without a victim. Rebecca Jackson appealed the trial court’s April 23, 2023 Order. Upon review of the record and relevant authority, we find no error in the trial court’s Order or additional findings of fact. Accordingly, the trial court’s Order is AFFIRMED. OPINION BY PRINCE, J.; BELL, V.C.J., and SWINTON, P.J., concur. April 17, 2024
121,472 – In the matter of: M.M., alleged deprived child, Mandy McPheeters, Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Charles Kevin Morrison, Trial Judge. Mandy McPheeters appeals an Order Terminating Parental Rights to her minor child, M.M. (“Child”). The State of Oklahoma sought termination of parental rights because of Ms. McPheeters’ possessing/using illegal drugs/addiction, exposure to substance abuse, and her failure to correct the conditions that led to a deprived adjudication. A trial was held and a jury returned a unanimous verdict terminating Ms. McPheeters’ parental rights. We have canvassed the record and conclude that the verdict is supported by clear and convincing evidence. We, therefore, AFFIRM the Order Terminating Parental Rights. Opinion by PRINCE, J.; BELL, V.C.J., and SWINTON, P.J., concur. April 17, 2024
120,849 – In Re the Marriage of: Linh Tran Stephens, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Adam Sylvester Stephens, Respondent/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable April Siebert, Trial Judge. Petitioner/Appellant Linh Tran Stephens (Mother) appeals the trial court’s order granting Respondent/Appellee Adam Sylvester Stephens’s (Father) motion to seal certain records. Father argued Mother violated his and the minor child’s privacy in attaching records containing protected personal information to her pleadings. Mother has failed to show an abuse of discretion and we affirm. Opinion by SWINTON, P.J.; BELL, V.C.J., and PRINCE, J., concur. April 23, 2024
Division II
120,697 – Oak Hills Care Center, LLC, d/b/a Oak Hills Living Center, and John H. Stout, Plaintiffs/Appellants, vs. Poulson Tax Resolution and Accounting, LLC, and Antuanya A. Debose, J.D., Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Cleveland County, Hon. Lori Walkley, Trial Judge. Plaintiffs appeal orders of the trial court granting judgment after jury verdict in favor of Defendants and denying Plaintiffs’ motion for new trial and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The two issues presented are whether Plaintiffs have shown (1) reversible error in the trial court’s instruction of the jury or (2) trial court abuse of discretion in denying Plaintiffs’ post-trial motions. After review of the appellate record and relevant law, we conclude Plaintiffs failed to show any reversible error or abuse of discretion, and we affirm. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; BARNES, C.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. April 17, 2024
121,000 (Companion with Case No. 121,974) – Tina Collins, Appellant, vs. Anthem Resources, LLC, Plaintiff/Appellee, vs. BCE Mach III, LLC; BCE-Stack Development, LLC; Lu-Ray Petroleum, LLC; Ray Cloer Revocable Trust, Dated 12-22-77; and Ray Cloer, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Kingfisher County, Hon. Paul Woodward, Trial Judge. Appellant Tina Collins appeals the trial court’s order denying her limited entry of appearance and notice of indispensable parties. We see no trial court error in denying Collins’ request to intervene, as of right or permissively. We affirm the trial court’s order denying her motion. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; FISCHER, J., and HIXON, J. (sitting by designation), concur. April 17, 2024
121,109 – Daisy Christian, Plaintiff/Appellee, and REMAX, Plaintiff, vs. Elaina Johnson, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Comanche County, Hon. Christine M. Galbraith, Trial Judge. Elaina Johnson appeals from the district court’s order, filed in January 2023, granting in part and denying in part her motion to vacate. Although we agree with Ms. Johnson that the January 2023 order constitutes an appealable order, we conclude the district court properly awarded costs to Plaintiffs. Moreover, we agree with Appellee that the record is insufficient for a judicial review of Ms. Johnson’s challenge to the $375 award. Therefore, based on our review, we affirm. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by BARNES, C.J.; FISCHER, J., concurs, and WISEMAN, P.J., concurs in result. April 17, 2024
121,815 – Gary Myers, an individual, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Annavee Elaine Hinkley, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Jackie Gayle Hensley, Deceased, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Cimarron County, Hon. Jon K. Parsley, Trial Judge. In this action for declaratory relief, Gary Myers appeals from the district court’s order granting Annavee Elaine Hinkley’s motion to dismiss with prejudice. For the reasons discussed herein, we conclude the trial court correctly determined that Mr. Myers’ action for declaratory relief is barred by the Full Faith and Credit Clause, is barred as an impermissible collateral attack on a sister state’s probate judgment and is barred under the theory of issue and claim preclusion. Therefore, the trial court did not err in granting the motion to dismiss with prejudice. Accordingly, we affirm. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by BARNES, C.J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. April 22, 2024
Division III
121,190 – In the Matter of the Adoption of E.C.I.W. and I.N.W, Jasmine Marie Crawford, Petitioner/Appellee, v. Desiree Dawn Graham, a/k/a Desiree Dawn Wogu, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Kurt G. Glassco, Trial Judge. This appeal was brought by the mother of children adjudicated eligible for adoption without her consent. Following a hearing, the court found the mother’s testimony was not credible. It determined the mother failed to establish and/or maintain a substantial positive relationship with the children and willfully failed, refused, or neglected to contribute to the support of the children. On appeal, the mother argues the children’s guardian who sought to adopt the children, failed to present clear and convincing evidence that the children were eligible for adoption without her consent. Specifically, the mother claims she was prevented by the guardian from establishing and/or maintaining a substantial and positive relationship with the children; and that in response to the guardian’s actions, the mother took sufficient legal action. Further, the mother argues her failure to contribute to the support of the children was not willful. Following a review of the record for clear and convincing evidence, we AFFIRM. Opinion by MITCHELL, P.J.; GOREE, J., and DOWNING, J., concur.
121,298 – D-MIL Production, INC., a Texas Corporation Domesticated in Oklahoma, and Rush Creek Resources, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Fractal Consulting, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company, and Evolution Energy, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of McClain County, Oklahoma. Honorable Charles Gray, Trial Judge. Plaintiffs/Appellants D-Mil Production, Inc. and Rush Creek Resources, LLC (collectively, D-Mil) appeal from (1) an order granting summary judgment to Defendants/Appellees Fractal Consulting, LLC and Evolution Energy, LLC (collectively, Fractal) and (2) an order denying its motion for new trial. D-Mil and Fractal filed competing quiet title claims, each seeking to have its respective oil and gas lease declared valid and superior to the other’s. After de novo review, we find the trial court properly granted summary judgment to Fractal because D-Mil’s lease expired under the lease’s habendum clause prior to being assigned to D-Mil. The trial court’s orders are AFFIRMED. Opinion by MITCHELL, P.J.; GOREE, J., and DOWNING, J., concur. April 18, 2024
121,352 – In the Matter of J.A., Alleged Deprived Child, Jonnesha Davis, Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Julie Doss, Trial Judge. The natural mother, Jonnesha Davis, appeals an order terminating her parental rights to J.A., a baby born eight weeks premature. Mother’s parental rights were terminated pursuant to 10A O.S. 2021 §1-4-904(14) because there had been a previous deprived adjudication as to her two older children and Mother had failed to correct the conditions which led to that previous adjudication. When born, the baby’s cord blood tested positive for methamphetamine and it was taken into emergency DHS custody. Approximately nine weeks after the baby was born the State filed a petition to adjudicate the child deprived and to terminate her parental rights. Mother did not appear at the hearing on the adjudication/termination Petition. Mother’s attorney assured the Court that she had been in contact with Mother and that Mother knew of the court date and that she was required to appear. Because the State’s Petition included the statutory language provided in 10A O.S. 2021 §1-4-905 that “FAILURE TO PERSONALLY APPEAR AT THIS HEARING CONSTITUTES CONSENT TO THE TERMINATION OF YOUR PARENTAL RIGHTS TO THIS CHILD . . . .” the State requested, and was granted, an immediate hearing for termination of Mother’s parental rights. A hearing was held and the trial court found clear and convincing evidence that the requirements of §1-4-904(14) were met and that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in J.A.’s best interests. The termination order is supported by the necessary clear and convincing evidence. A motion to vacate was filed pursuant to 10A O.S. 2021 §1-4-905(B). Mother claimed she was prevented from attending the hearing because of the unavoidable casualty of having overslept. The trial court denied the motion. No abuse of discretion is shown in denying the motion to vacate. Opinion by MITCHELL, P.J.; GOREE, J., and DOWNING, J., concur. April 18, 2024
121,918 – In the Matter of: E.B. & K.B., Alleged Deprived Children, Brian Barker, Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Theresa Dreiling, Trial Judge. Brian Barker (Father) appeals the trial court’s Order filed August 8, 2023, terminating his parental rights as to E.B. and K.B. We have reviewed the record and are not persuaded by Father’s arguments. Clear and convincing evidence supports termination. We AFFIRM. Opinion by DOWNING, J.; MITCHELL, P.J., and GOREE, J., concur. April 18, 2024
Division IV
120,808 – Gulf Exploration, LLC; Come Big or Stay Home, LLC; Cummings Oil Company; Endico, Inc; Fig 2013 Drilling & Acquisition, GP; Garrett and Company Resources; William P. Garrett; Pegasus Production, LLC; Santa Rosa Resources, Inc.; Thoroughbred Ventures, LLC: Mainwright Holdings, LLC; Yale Oil Association, Inc., Plaintiffs/Appellees, vs. Oklahoma Energy Acquisitions, LP, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Kingfisher County, Hon. Lance Schneiter, Trial Judge. Defendant Oklahoma Energy Acquisitions, L.P. (OEA) appeals a judgment entered following jury verdict in favor of Plaintiffs on their claims for negligence and nuisance against OEA. Plaintiffs contended that OEA’s fracking operations inundated one of their oil and gas wells with fresh water, causing damage to its oil and gas production. OEA asserts the trial court erred by denying its motion for directed verdict on both claims and committed prejudicial error through admission of evidence of other similar “frack-bashing” suits against OEA. On review of the record and the briefing on appeal, we affirm the judgment. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, J.; HUBER, P.J., and BLACKWELL, J., concur. April 17, 202