Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | Aug. 13, 2025
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
122,604 – Charles Reinhardt, an Individual, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Oklahoma Spine and Brain Institute, LLP, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Partnership; Daniel Harwell, M.D., PLLC, an Oklahoma Professional Limited Company; and Daniel Harwell, M.D., Defendants/Appellees, and AHS Hillcrest Medical Center, LLC dba Hillcrest Medical Center, a Foreign Limited Liability Corporation, Tulsa Spine & Specialty Hospital, LLC, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company and Frank Tomecek, M.D., Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Caroline Wall, Trial Judge. This is an appeal from an Order Granting Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff’s Counsel. Plaintiff/Appellant, Charles Reinhardt, appeals the trial court’s order. Defendants/Appellees, Daniel Harwell, M.D., PLLC, Daniel Harwell, M.D., and Oklahoma Spine and Brain Institute, LLP (collectively “Defendants Harwell and OSBI”), filed the Motion to Disqualify the law firm hired by Mr. Reinhardt (“The Smolen Law Firm”) pursuant to Rules 1.9 and 1.10 of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, because an attorney who formerly represented Defendants in this matter switched law firms and joined The Smolen Law Firm. The trial court conducted a hearing and thereafter entered an Order disqualifying the Smolen Law Firm. We have reviewed the record and applicable law and find that the Order of the trial court disqualifying The Smolen Law Firm from representing Mr. Reinhardt should be AFFIRMED. Opinion by PRINCE, J.; SWINTON, J., concurs and DOWNING, J., (sitting by designation) concurs. August 7, 2025
Division II
121,172 – Mangum Housing Authority, Plaintiff/Appellee, vs. Tonya G. Wilder, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Greer County, Hon. Eric G. Yarborough, Trial Judge. Defendant Tonya G. Wilder appeals from the district court’s judgment granting possession of a residential premises, costs and fees to Plaintiff Mangum Housing Authority. She also appeals the district court’s order denying her post-trial “motion to reconsider.” The ruling on Wilder’s post-trial motion has not been reduced to an appealable order and remains pending, precluding the commencement of this appeal. Because Wilder did not respond to this Court’s order directing her to address this procedural defect, this appeal must be dismissed. DISMISSED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II by FISCHER, J.; WISEMAN, P.J., concurs, and BLACKWELL, J., dissents. August 12, 2025
Division III
122,700 – Blackburn Plumbing, LLC, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company and Blackburn Heat & Air, LLC, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company, Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. Clay Archey, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Bryan County, Oklahoma. Honorable Mark Campbell, Trial Judge. Defendant Archey appeals a money judgment against him in the total amount of $13,033 in favor of the two Blackburn plaintiffs. Blackburn Plumbing was awarded $9,753 and Blackburn Heat & Air was awarded $3,280. These amounts were for unpaid labor and services provided by Blackburn. Archey primarily takes issue with the sanction imposed on him for failing to respond to interrogatories and document requests. Those failures were followed by failures to respond to a motion to compel and a motion for sanctions. The sanction imposed was to prohibit Archey from introducing designated matters in evidence pursuant to 12 O.S. 2021 §3237(B)(2)(b). Archey did not object to the sanction, or anything else for that matter. There is no error preserved for appellate review regarding the sanctions imposed or the evidence upon which the judgment was based. Error not raised before the trial court may not be considered for the first time on appeal. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. Cable, 1978 OK 133, ¶16, 585 P.2d 1113, 1116; 12 O.S. 2021 §992; Jones v. Okla. City Urban Renewal Authority, 1973 OK 65, ¶13, 514 P.2d 661, 665. In other words, by not objecting to the Court’s rulings Archey has waived the right to have those rulings reviewed. AFFIRMED. Opinion by MITCHELL, J.; BELL, C.J., and DOWNING, P.J., concur. August 8, 2025
122,828 – Sharon Hughes, by and through her Daughter, Next Friend and Power of Attorney, Kimberly D. Beck, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Opshaw, L.L.C., d/b/a The Regency Skilled Nursing & Therapy, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Pottawatomie County, Oklahoma. Honorable John G. Canavan, Trial Judge. Plaintiff/Appellee, Sharon Hughes (Mother), by and through her daughter, next friend, and power of attorney Kimberly D. Beck (Daughter), filed the instant personal injury action against Defendant/Appellant, Opshaw, L.L.C. d/b/a The Regency Skilled Nursing & Therapy (Regency). Prior to Mother’s admission to Regency, Daughter executed an admission agreement as Mother’s “Resident Representative.” Attached to the admission agreement was a separate Dispute Resolution Provision/Agreement (Arbitration Agreement). Daughter executed the signature line on the Arbitration Agreement labeled “Legal representative of Resident (if any)/Agent of Resident (if any) KIM BECK.” Regency filed a motion to compel arbitration pursuant to that agreement. Mother opposed the motion arguing Daughter did not have the authority to bind Mother to the Arbitration Agreement or to waive Mother’s right to a jury trial. Mother appointed Daughter as Mother’s attorney-in-fact under a power of attorney executed after Daughter signed the Arbitration Agreement. After a hearing and without explaining the basis for its ruling, the district court denied the motion to compel arbitration. The issue on appeal is whether Daughter had the authority to bind Mother to the Arbitration Agreement. After de novo review of the record, this Court holds Daughter did not have the legal authority to bind Mother to the arbitration agreement. The district court’s order is AFFIRMED. Opinion by BELL, C.J.; MITCHELL, J., concurs and DOWNING, P.J., dissents. August 8, 2025
Division IV
122,719 — In the Matter of A.D., Alleged Deprived Child, Heather Dollarhide, Appellant, vs. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Cleveland County, Hon. Kim Conyers, Trial Judge. Heather Dollarhide (Mother) appeals the trial court’s Order denying her Motion to Vacate Order of Termination. Mother asserts she was not provided adequate notice that her failure to appear at a Permanency/Review Hearing constituted consent to termination of her parental rights. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we reverse the trial court’s Order denying Mother’s Motion to Vacate Order of Termination as well as the underlying Order Terminating Parental Rights, which was entered by default, and remand both for further proceedings. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, HIXON, V.C.J.; BARNES, P.J., and HUBER, J., concur. August 6, 2025
121,869 – In the Matter of the Estate of: Crystal Lane Davis Schabach, deceased, Terry E. Davis, Nichole Poppell Davis, and Toni R. Parry, heirs and interested parties, Appellants, vs. David Schabach, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of McCurtain County, Hon. Tim T. Ragland, Trial Judge. Petitioners/appellants, Terry E. Davis, Nichole Poppell Davis, and Toni R. Parry, appeal part of a district court order finding that Crystal Lane Davis Schabach, deceased, was domiciled in Newton County, Missouri, at the time of her death. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we affirm. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HUBER, J.; BARNES, P.J., and HIXON, V.C.J., concur. August 8, 2025
121,342 – In re the Marriage of: Kara Hammons, Petitioner/Appellee, vs. Billy Bud Hammons, Respondent/Appellant, and Hammons Heat & Air, Inc., and Bud Hammons Heating & Air, LLC, Respondents. Appeal from the District Court of LeFlore County, Hon. Marion Fry, Trial Judge. Billy Bud Hammons (Husband) appeals the trial court’s Decree of Dissolution of Marriage. Husband asks us to review whether the trial court erred in its award of support alimony and alimony in lieu of property division to Kara Hammons (Wife). Husband also asks this Court to deny Wife’s request for attorney fees. After review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s Decree of Dissolution of Marriage filed on May 25, 2023. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HUBER, J.; BARNES, P.J., and HIXON, V.C.J., concur. August 8, 2025