Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | April 27, 2022

Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals

Division I

119,756        –    Park Place Estates, LLC, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Mueller, Inc. Defendant/Appellee.  Appeal from the District Court of Canadian County, Oklahoma.  Honorable Jack McCurdy, Trial Judge. Plaintiff/Appellant, Park Place Estates, LLC, appeals from the trial court’s dismissal of its contract action against Defendant/Appellee, Mueller, Inc.  The trial court held the State of Texas has exclusive jurisdiction and venue over the dispute. Plaintiff’s principal place of business is located in Canadian County, Oklahoma.  Defendant, a Texas corporation that manufactures steel buildings, is principally located in Ballinger, Texas, but also has a branch office in Canadian County. In January 2020, the parties executed a contract for Defendant to manufacture a custom pre-fabricated metal building to be delivered to Plaintiff.  Plaintiff later filed the instant action, alleging Defendant breached the parties’ contract and wrongly retained Plaintiff’s deposit.  At issue is a provision in the parties’ contract that states “for products purchased outside Texas, venue is proper for either Tom Green County or the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.”  The relevant contract language merely provides that venue is proper in either Tom Green County or the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.  The language at issue does not clearly demonstrate the parties’ intent demonstrating litigation is appropriate in only those courts.  Therefore, we conclude the forum selection clause at issue is permissive, rather than mandatory.  REVERSED.  Opinion by BELL, P.J.; PRINCE, J., (sitting by designation) concurs and GOREE, J., dissents. – April 21, 2022

119,854         –    (Consolidated with 119,855) BASIC ENERGY SERVICE, L.P.,Plaintiff/Appellee, HUSKY  VENTURES, INC.,   CHARLES V. LONG, JR., ROSEWOOD ENERGY, ROSEWOOD ENERGY II, L.L.C., SILVER STAR OF NEVADA, INC., BCE‑MACH III, L.L.C., GORE EXPLORATION, L.L.C.,  FOREMAN ENTERPRISES, INC.,Defendants/Appellants, RICK CARUTHERS CONSTRUCTION INC., ATLAS DRILLING, L.L.C., VALENCE DRILLING FLUIDS, L.L.C., M&M ACQUISITION, L.L.C., RUFNEX RENTALS, INC., CUDD PRESSURE CONTROL, INC., THRU TUBING SOLUTIONS, INC.,     WALT’S TRUCKING, L.L.C., SUNBELT OILFIELD SUPPLY, INC., RITE‑WAY CONSTRUCTION, L.L.C., OIL COUNTRY PIPE & SUPPLY, L.L.C.,  KWICK TRUCKING, L.L.C., TRES MANAGEMENT, INC.,  HOUSTON EDSEL ENERGY, L.L.C., CONTRACTORS OILFIELD  SERVICE & SUPPLY, L.L.C., HUNTER STEEL, LLC, H2 SERVICES, L.L.C.,TDS, INC., C&J SPEC‑RENT SERVICES, INC., AES DRILLING FLUIDS, L.L.C., BAKER HUGHES     OILFIELD OPERATIONS, L.L.C., EARNHEART OIL, INC., B.O.P.     RAM‑BLOCK & IRON RENTALS, INC., CROSSFIRST BANK, aka  CROSSFIRST BANKSHARES, INC., and CARGILL, INCORPORATED, Defendants.  Appeal from the District Court of Blaine County, Oklahoma.  Honorable Paul K. Woodward, Trial Judge.  Appellants, Charles Long, Jr., Rosewood Energy, L.L.C. and Silver Star of Nevada, Inc., request this court review the Blaine County District Court orders of August 16, 2021 granting the motions for summary judgment of Basic Energy, L.P. against Charles Long, Jr. (119,854), Rosewood Energy, L.L.C. and Silver Star of Nevada, Inc. (119,855), consolidating the cases under surviving case number 119,854. We affirm the orders of the district court. AFFIRMED. Opinion by GOREE, J.; BELL, P.J., and SWINTON, J., (sitting by designation) concur. – April 19, 2022

Division II

Division III

Division IV

119,638 – In the Matter of S.W., T.W., D.H., Alleged Deprived Children Under the Age of 18 Years:  Jeri Wright, Appellant, vs. State of Oklahoma, Appellee.  Appeal from the District Court of Bryan County, Hon. Trace Sherrill, Trial Judge.  Jeri Wright (Mother) appeals the trial court’s May 12, 2021, order terminating her parental rights to the minor children, T.W. born June 2007, S.W. born July 2013, and D.H. born September 2016.  The Oklahoma and federal Indian Child Welfare Acts (ICWA) apply to this proceeding because the children are Indian.  Mother’s voluntary consent served as the sole ground for termination under 10A O.S. Supp.2015, § 1-4-904(B)(1).  However, Mother contends the order should be reversed because she alleges the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the order; that the jury trial, which was commenced but not completed before her consent was entered, violated her right to due process; and that she was deprived of her right to court-appointed counsel under ICWA during the pendency of the case, though she was duly represented by counsel when she consented to the termination of her rights.  Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the order.  AFFIRMED.  Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, J.; FISCHER, C.J., and BARNES, P.J., concur. – April 20, 2022

118,627 – U.S. Bank National Association, not in its individual capacity but solely as Trustee for the RMAC Trust, Series 2016-CTT Substituted, Plaintiff/Appellee, vs. Maria A. Rodriguez a/k/a Maria A. Velita, Defendant/Appellant.  Appeal from Order of the District Court of Canadian County, Hon. Paul Hesse, Trial Judge.  Defendant Maria A. Velita, a/k/a Maria A. Rodriguez, appeals the denial of her motion to vacate the judgment in favor of Plaintiff U.S. Bank National Association in this mortgage foreclosure action.  The district court’s jurisdiction was established when Bank of America, N.A., filed the original petition in this case and attached a true and correct copy of the promissory note which Velita signed when she borrowed money secured by a mortgage on her home.  That jurisdiction was unaffected by the substitution of Bank National as the plaintiff in this case.  Further, the record clearly shows that Bank National was in possession of the promissory note executed by Velita and entitled to pursue collection of that note and foreclose the related mortgage when it filed its motion for summary judgment.  Velita argued that the blank endorsement added to Velita’s promissory note was a forgery.  Because Velita did not appeal that judgment, Velita prevented the district court from considering whether the note was a forgery, the issue raised in her motion to vacate.  AFFIRMED.  Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV by FISCHER, V.C.J.; HIXON, P.J., and RAPP, J., concur. April 22, 2022