Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | April 9, 2025
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
Division II
121,615 – In re Marriage of: Buddy Leroy Scarberry, Petitioner/Appellant, vs. Mary Scarberry, Respondent/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Pottawatomie County, Honorable Emily Mueller, Trial Judge. Buddy Leroy Scarberry appeals from the district court’s “Order on Remand.” Based on our review, we vacate for abuse of discretion and remand with directions to divide the lost earnings equally between the parties. VACATED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; FISCHER, J., concurs, and BARNES, C.J., dissents. April 2, 2025
121,775 (Companion with Case No. 121,774) – William Heffron, Trustee of the William Heffron Revocable Trust dated March 27, 2002, a/k/a William Heffron Rev Trust; Park Prop, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company; and William Heffron, individually, Plaintiffs/Appellants, and Park Prop, LLC-2821 Series, an Oklahoma limited liability company, Plaintiff, vs. Triple H Investments, LLC, Defendant/Appellee, and Quick Real Estate Solutions, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company; Valor Bank; Jason Coty Underwood a/k/a Jason Underwood; Chicago Title Oklahoma Co., f/k/a Old Republic Title Company of Oklahoma, Defendants. Appeal from Order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Anthony Bonner, Trial Judge. On November 20, 2023, Appellants filed both a motion to vacate an October 19, 2023 order granting summary judgment in favor of Appellee, and a Petition in Error with the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The district court’s order quieted title to certain property in Appellee’s favor. Appellants failed to include any statement of the case or issues to be raised on appeal with their petition in error. These items were also omitted from an amended petition in error despite an Oklahoma Supreme Court order requiring amendment for this purpose. Notwithstanding, upon our de novo review of Appellee’s motion for summary judgment, we affirm the district court’s determination that Appellee, as the party with legal title to the subject property and with a superior claim of title, was entitled to judgment quieting title to the property in its name. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II by FISCHER, J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and BLACKWELL, J., concur. April 2, 2025
Division III
122,116 – Joshua Lee and Mo Thao Lee, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. Lee Peterson and 1Zero8MGT, LLC, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company, Defendants/Appellants, and Kou Vang, a/k/a Kou Vang Pao Lor, a/k/a Kub Vaj Pow Lauj, a/k/a Kos Lauj, Defendant. Appeal from the District Court of Cherokee County, Oklahoma. Honorable Douglas Kirkley, Trial Judge. Plaintiffs/Appellees, Josh Lee and Mo Thao Lee, husband and wife, filed a petition against Defendants/Appellants, Lee Peterson and 1Zero8MGT, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company (Company), to collect upon an unpaid loan in the amount of $500,000.00. Plaintiffs obtained a default judgment and were awarded actual damages of $500,000.00, 100% interest per annum until paid, and attorney fees and costs of $5,600.00. Defendants filed a petition to vacate alleging the judgment is void for lack of proper service of process. Alternatively, Defendants alleged the judgment should be vacated because the damage award creates a substantial hardship. Without stating the reasons for its ruling, the trial court denied the petition to vacate. Defendants appealed alleging the trial court abused its discretion when it denied the petition to vacate. After reviewing the record, we cannot find the trial court abused its discretion and AFFIRM the trial court’s order. Opinion by BELL, C.J.; DOWNING, P.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. April 2, 2025
122,367 – In the Matter of: J.P.J.K., Jr., Alleged Deprived Child, Jerome Kirk, Sr., Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Julie Doss, Trial Judge. Appellant Jerome Kirk, Sr. (Father) appeals from the order terminating his parental rights to J.P.J.K., Jr. Father claims the court abused its discretion by allowing prejudicial hearsay testimony into evidence. He also contends the court erred by finding the Department of Human Services (DHS) expended reasonable efforts to reunify Father with J.P.J.K. Finally, he argues Appellee the State of Oklahoma (the State) failed to meet its burden to show, through clear and convincing evidence, that the grounds for termination had been satisfied and that termination was in J.P.J.K.’s best interest. We find no abuses of discretion in the court’s decision to allow testimony about the child’s wishes. We also find there was sufficient evidence to support the court’s findings that (1) DHS expended reasonable efforts; (2) the grounds for termination were satisfied; and (3) termination of Father’s parental rights was in J.P.J.K.’s best interest. Accordingly, we AFFIRM. Opinion by MITCHELL, J.; BELL, C.J., and DOWNING, P.J., concur. April 2, 2025
122,389 – In the Matter of: J.P.J.K., Jr., and N.M.W., Alleged Deprived Children, Fantasee Lanette Williams, Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Julie Doss, Trial Judge. Appellant Fantasee Lanette Williams (Mother) appeals from the order terminating her parental rights to J.P.J.K., Jr. and N.M.W. (collectively, Minor Children). Mother claims the trial court erred by terminating her rights on grounds not alleged in the adjudication proceedings. She also contends the Department of Human Services (DHS) did not provide adequate efforts to reunify her with her children. Finally, she argues Appellee the State of Oklahoma (the State) failed to meet its burden to show, through clear and convincing evidence, that Mother did not correct the conditions leading to the children’s deprived adjudication. We find no errors of law or due process violations in the court’s decision to terminate Mother’s rights on the additional grounds alleged here – namely, a conviction for child abuse and Mother’s incarceration. Further, the record contains sufficient evidence to support the court’s findings that (1) DHS expended reasonable efforts and (2) Mother failed to correct the conditions at issue. Accordingly, we AFFIRM. Opinion by MITCHELL, J.; BELL, C.J., and DOWNING, P.J., concur. April 2, 2025
122,426 – In the Matter of: A.R.B., D.J.N.G.B., and E.M.C., alleged deprived children, State of Oklahoma, Petitioner/Appellee, v. Jonathan David Stewart, and Pamela Lynn Stewart, Respondents/Appellants. Appeal from the District Court of Washington County, Oklahoma. Honorable Kyra K. Franks, Trial Judge. In this deprived children proceeding, Respondents/Appellants, Jonathan and Pamela Stewart, husband and wife, the guardians of A.R.B., D.J.N.G.B., and E.M.C., minor children (Guardians), appeal from the trial court’s order terminating Guardians’ legal guardianship of the children. The court terminated the guardianship on the basis that Guardians failed to perform their duties pursuant to 30 O.S. 2021 §4-801(A)(1), and due to Guardians gross immorality pursuant to 30 O.S. 2021 §4-801(A)(4). This Court holds the clear and convincing evidence supports the trial court’s determination that it is in the children’s best interest to dissolve the guardianship and maintain the children in the temporary custody of the Oklahoma Department of Human Services (DHS) pending an adjudication hearing with the natural parents. This Court further finds the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it entered the order dissolving the co-guardianship. The trial court’s order is AFFIRMED. Opinion by BELL, C.J.; DOWNING, P.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. April 2, 2025
121,990 – In re the Marriage of Morales: Jennifer Morales, Petitioner/Appellee, v. Teodoro Antonio Morales, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Kirsten Pace, Trial Judge. Respondent/Appellant Teodoro Antonio Morales (Husband) appeals from an order granting the dissolution of marriage from Petitioner/Appellee Jennifer Morales (Wife). He asserts the court erred by failing to credit him with “excessive” debt payments made during the pendency of the nearly seven-year action, the court erred in the amount of alimony awarded to Wife, the court erred by deducting part of the alimony award from Husband’s portion of the property division, the court erred by ordering Husband to pay for the children’s extracurricular and educational expenses, and the court erred by failing to credit Husband with payments made to the children’s school and to his fiancé. Following a search of the record for sufficient competent evidence that supports the trial court’s decision and to determine that the law was correctly applied, we affirm in part and reverse in part. We find no error in the court’s declination to provide Husband with credit for payments made during the pendency of the action as his non-compliance with discovery and court orders significantly prolonged the case; and we find no error in the amount of the award of alimony to Wife as her demonstrated need and Husband’s ability to pay are supported by the the clear weight of the evidence. We reverse the court’s offset of a portion of Wife’s alimony award from Husband’s equitable division of marital property because Wife’s alimony award is not absolute as alimony awards are subject to subsequent termination upon changing circumstances. We decline to review Husband’s final propositions of error as they were not raised in the trial court so they cannot be raised for the first time in the appellate court, and we decline to review them because Husband failed to cite to authority in support of his contentions of error. Affirmed in part and reversed in part. Opinion by MITCHELL, J.; BELL, C.J., and DOWNING, P.J., concur. April 7, 2025
Division IV