Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | April 30, 2025
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
122,587 – Multiple Injury Trust Fund, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Brenda Jackson, and The Workers’ Compensation Commission, Respondents/Appellees. Proceeding to Review an Order of The Workers’ Compensation Commission. Petitioner/Appellant, Multiple Injury Trust Fund, appeals an Order granting MITF benefits to Respondent/Appellee, Brenda Jackson (“Claimant”). Claimant sought permanent total disability (“PTD”) benefits from MITF based on a combination of injuries which she claimed rendered her permanently and totally disabled. MITF disagreed and a Commission Independent Medical Examiner (“CIME”) was appointed to examine Claimant. In the opinion of the CIME, Claimant was employable. The Administrative Law Judge deviated from the report rendered by the CIME and granted Claimant her request for benefits. MITF argues that the Order of the ALJ is not supported by substantial evidence and that the ALJ failed to make specific findings demonstrating that a deviation from the report of the CIME was supported by clear and convincing evidence. In response, Claimant argues, inter alia, that the record supports the award and argues in the alternative that the clear and convincing standard of proof set forth in 85A O.S. § 112(I) is unconstitutional. Because we find that the appealed Order is supported in the record by substantial evidence, we will not address Claimant’s challenge to the constitutionality of 85A O.S. § 112(I). After a review of the record and the law, we SUSTAIN the appealed Order granting MITF benefits to Claimant. Opinion by PRINCE, J.; GOREE, P.J., and SWINTON, J., concur. April 24, 2025
Division II
Division III
121,491 – Sarah Elizabeth Petrich, Anne Katherine Petrich, Nathaniel Robert Petrich, Stacia Lynn Steichen, Michael Thomas Steichen, and Adam Joseph Steichen, as beneficiaries of the Ruth Helen Steichen Testamentary GST Exemption Residuary Trust(s) and Non-Exempt Residuary Trust(s), Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Larry Dean Steichen, individually and as Trustee of the Ruth Helen Steichen Testamentary GST Exemption Residuary Trust(s) and Non-Exempt Residuary Trust(s), Linda Katherine Petrich, and Rebecca Ann Bolene, Defendants/Appellees, and Thomas Joseph Steichen, individually and as Trustee of the Ruth Helen Steichen Testamentary GST Exemption Residuary Trust(s) and Non-Exempt Residuary Trust(s) and Mary Jean Steichen, individually and as Trustee of the Ruth Helen Steichen Testamentary GST Exemption Residuary Trust(s) and Non-Exempt Residuary Trust(s), Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of Kay County, Oklahoma. Honorable Lee Turner, Trial Judge. At issue is whether a trustee of testamentary generation skipping trusts contemplated in a codicil to a will, can be held liable to the grandchildren of the decedent for terminating the trusts, and whether the siblings of the trustee can be held liable to the grandchildren of the decedent for aiding and abetting their sibling in terminating the generation skipping trusts. The trial court concluded the grandchildren are not vested beneficiaries of their grandmother’s estate and granted the trustee and his siblings’ motion to dismiss the grandchildren’s petition for breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duty, and aiding and abetting. We affirm the court’s order granting the motion to dismiss because the doctrine of issue preclusion prevents the grandchildren from relitigating the foundational question in the case — whether the grandchildren have standing as vested beneficiaries — as this issue reached final adjudication in the probate of the decedent’s estate (Case No. 121,486) wherein the grandchildren had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue. The question regarding the grandchildren’s standing to bring claims regarding their grandmother’s estate is settled, and the grandchildren are barred from its relitigation here. Opinion by MITCHELL, J.; BELL, C.J., and DOWNING, P.J., concur. April 24, 2025
122,255 – Mary Stufflebeam, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Department of Human Services, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Tracy Priddy, Trial Judge. After exercising her right to an administrative hearing before the Department of Human Services (DHS), Mary Stufflebeam (Stufflebeam) was put on the Community Services Worker Registry (CSWR) for financial exploitation against B.P., a 74-year-old vulnerable adult. Stufflebeam appealed and the district court affirmed the order of the ALJ. After a thorough review of the record on appeal, we AFFIRM. Opinion by DOWNING, P.J.; BELL, C.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. April 24, 2025
122,269 – Joseph M. Cervantez, Colbert-Grant’s Investments, LLC, Steven Whitaker, Kevin Kunkel, Rose Kunkle, and Tom Colbert, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. The State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Oklahoma Department of Transportation, The City of Tulsa, Becco Contractors, Inc., OBC, Inc., Successor to Plains Bridge Contracting, Treas Construction and Craig & Keithline, Inc., Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Osage County, Oklahoma. Honorable Russell Vaclaw, Trial Judge. Plaintiffs/Appellants brought this action against Defendants/Appellees for nuisance, trespass and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs claim Defendants illegally deposited highway construction debris near Plaintiffs’ private lake, i.e. Theisen Lake, and that said dumpsite debris and sediment has run-off, silted and polluted Theisen Lake. Plaintiffs sought damages, abatement and an injunction. Prior to discovery, Plaintiffs filed a motion to abate and restoration. Plaintiffs also sought an injunction. The district court held at this early stage of the litigation, Plaintiffs’ right to an injunction and abatement is speculative because none of the Defendants own the dumpsite and liability has not been determined. The court also questioned whether a non-party, over whom the court has no jurisdiction, might be at fault and whether the court lacks jurisdiction due to the timing of the lawsuit. The court denied Plaintiffs’ motion to abate and restoration without conducting an evidentiary hearing. Plaintiffs appealed claiming the district court erred when it denied Plaintiffs’ motions without an evidentiary hearing because such denial violated Plaintiffs’ rights to due process and to present evidence in support of an injunction. We hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the motion to abate and restoration and when it denied Plaintiffs’ request for an injunction. The trial court’s order is AFFIRMED. Opinion by BELL, C.J.; DOWNING, P.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. April 24, 2025
121,546 – Continental Resources, Inc., Plaintiff/Appellee/Counter-Appellant, v. Hiland Partners Holdings, LLC, Defendant, and Avansic, Inc., Gavin W. Manes, and Lance Watson, Non-Parties/Appellants/Counter-Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Garfield County, Oklahoma. Honorable Tom Newby, Trial Judge. This case presents competing appeals that challenge the trial court’s award of attorney fees and costs to a non-party after the settlement and dismissal of all claims by the parties. Prior to dismissal of the case, one of the parties and the non-party engaged in a discovery dispute for which the non-party sought attorney fees after the case was closed. The trial court awarded a reduced fee, and both the party and non-party appealed. Following de novo review, we hold that once the case was settled and dismissed, the trial court lost jurisdiction and did not have authority to enter an award for attorney fees. The order of the trial court awarding attorney fees and costs to the non-party is REVERSED. Opinion by MITCHELL, J.; BELL, C.J., and DOWNING, P.J., concur. April 24, 2025
Division IV
120,278 (Consolidated with Case No. 120,472 & Companion with Case No. 120,279) – Kacey Joanne Calhoun, (now Goodno), Petitioner/Appellee, vs. Shawn Colby Calhoun, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Kay County, Hon. Jennifer Brock, Trial Judge. We find the district court erred in failing to comply with Fleig v. Landmark Constr. Grp., 2024 OK 25, 549 P.3d 1208 and State ex rel. Burk v. City of Oklahoma City, 1979 OK 115, 598 P.2d 659 in its award of attorney fees and costs and we must reverse the February 18, 2022 attorney fee order and remand for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. We also find that Calhoun’s contention that it was error to award fees to Goodno because he was the prevailing party is without merit. In addition, we find the district court did not err in imposing sanctions pursuant to 12 O.S.2021 § 2011, sua sponte, against Calhoun. However, the court did err in imposing attorney fees as a sanction under Section 2011(C)(2). Thus, we reverse the court’s award of attorney fees and costs as set forth in the court’s September 9, 2023, Court’s Sua Sponte Sanctions Against Respondent for Violating 12 O.S. § 2011(B) and remand to the district court for further proceedings on Petitioner’s Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs filed on June 30, 2022. Next, we find the district court did not err in denying Calhoun’s motion to enforce visitation. Finally, we deny, without prejudice, Goodno’s request for appeal-related attorney fees as premature. Based on the foregoing, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HUBER, J.; BARNES, P.J., and HIXON, V.C.J., concur. April 23, 2025
120,279 (Companion with Case No. 120,278) – Kacey Joanne Calhoun, (now Goodno), Petitioner/Appellee, vs. Shawn Colby Calhoun, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Kay County, Hon. Jennifer Brock, Trial Judge. Shawn Colby Calhoun appeals the district court’s December 15, 2021 and February 18, 2022 orders granting the requests for attorney fees and costs pursuant to 22 O.S.2021 § 60.2(C) of Kacey Joanne Calhoun, now Goodno, in this protective order action. After a review of the appellate record and applicable law, we affirm the district court’s December 15, 2021 award of attorney fees and costs to Goodno and reverse the court’s February 18, 2022 award of attorney fees. In all other respects, the February 18, 2022, Court’s Findings and Orders on Respondent’s Motion to Reconsider and/or Vacate and Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss/And for Attorneys Fees and Sanctions is affirmed. Goodno’s request for appeal-related attorney fees is granted and remanded to the district court to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine a reasonable appeal-related attorney fee for Goodno. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HUBER, J.; BARNES, P.J., and HIXON, V.C.J., concur. April 23, 2025
122,143 – In the Matter of: B.H., Alleged Deprived Child, Connie Holman, Appellant, vs. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Mark McCormick, Trial Judge. Appellant, Connie Holman (Mother), appeals the district court’s April 1, 2024 Order, entered after a jury verdict, terminating her parental rights to the minor child, B.H., based on her failure to correct the conditions which led to the child’s deprived adjudication pursuant to 10A O.S.2021, § 1-4-904(B)(5). We find the district court did not err in determining that State presented clear and convincing evidence that it made active efforts to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs to prevent the breakup of this Indian family and that these active efforts were unsuccessful. We also find Mother failed to preserve the issue of competency for appeal and to provide legal authority in support of this proposition. This Court will, therefore, not consider this allegation of error. We find the district court did not err in entering its April 1, 2024 Order Terminating Parental Rights terminating Mother’s parental rights to B.H. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HUBER, J.; BARNES, P.J., and HIXON, V.C.J., concur. April 23, 2025