Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | Aug. 16, 2023
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
120,642 – Arrowhead Estates, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. John Johnston, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Pittsburg County, Oklahoma. Honorable Brian McLaughlin, Trial Judge. Appellant, John Johnston (Johnston) appeals a Judgment entered on August 1, 2022, ordering him to pay $4,638.10 in assessment costs to Appellee, Arrowhead Estates for almost three decades of unpaid assessments. We find that the statute of limitations applies to unpaid assessments that breach restrictive covenants. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. Opinion by DOWNING, J.; GOREE, P.J., and SWINTON, J., concur. August 10, 2023
120,894 – In the Matter of: A.T., Alleged Deprived Child, Erick Thomas, Natural Father, Appellant, v. The State of Oklahoma, Tulsa County, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Julie Doss, Trial Judge. In this case, the trial court terminated the parental rights of an incarcerated father convicted of abusing his child. We AFFIRM this decision. Opinion by GOREE, P.J.; SWINTON, J., and DOWNING, J., concur. August 10, 2023
Division II
120,980 – Monte Schmidt, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Jerry Dunkin Well Services, Inc.; Jerry D. Dunkin Living Trust Dated July 17, 2002; Estate of Jerry D. Dunkin; Sandra G. Dunkin, individually and in her official capacities as President, Trustee and Personal Representative, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Garfield County, Hon. Paul K. Woodward, Trial Judge. Monte Schmidt appeals from orders of the district court dismissing Defendants Jerry D. Dunkin Living Trust Dated July 17, 2002, and Sandra G. Dunkin, as Trustee of the Jerry D. Dunkin Living Trust, and granting summary judgment in favor of the remaining Defendants. Mr. Schmidt also seeks review of the district court’s decision to strike his response to the motion for summary judgment, and of the court’s order granting Defendants’ Motion for Discharge of Lis Pendens. Based on our review, we affirm the court’s decision to strike Mr. Schmidt’s response to the motion for summary judgment. However, we reverse the court’s order granting the motion for summary judgment because it fails to address all material facts. We also reverse the court’s order granting in part the motion to dismiss, a motion that fails to address all of Mr. Schmidt’s allegations. We affirm the court’s order granting Defendants’ Motion for Discharge of Lis Pendens. The case is remanded for further proceedings. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by BARNES, V.C.J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and HIXON, J., concur. August 9, 2023
Division III
120,402 – Avenue East Apartments LLC, d/b/a Alight Stillwater, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Charlene Latham, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Payne County, Oklahoma. Honorable Katherine E. Thomas, Trial Judge. Defendant/Appellant Charlene Latham (Latham) appeals from a forcible entry and detainer judgment entered in favor of Plaintiff/Appellee Avenue East Apartments LLC, d/b/a Alight Stillwater (Apartment Complex). She also appeals the trial court’s denial of her post‑trial motions. Apartment Complex moves to dismiss the appeal. Although we deny the motion, we agree with the arguments made therein: Latham’s claims regarding her right to possess the property are moot. Her remaining proposition of error – that the court erred by refusing to allow her to transfer the case from small claims to district court so that she could assert counterclaims – is denied because Latham failed to assert counterclaims or request a transfer until after judgment had been entered against her. We AFFIRM. Opinion by MITCHELL, C.J.; PRINCE, P.J., and BELL, J., concur. August 10, 2023
121,004 – Shelly A. Seaton, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Rhonda Mills, Defendant/Appellee.. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Douglas E. Drummond, Trial Judge. At the end of the workday on September 16, 2020, Defendant/Appellee Rhonda Mills (“Mills”), allegedly backed her vehicle into Plaintiff/Appellant Shelly A. Seaton (“Seaton”) in the parking lot of their employer, Clifford Power Systems, Inc. Seaton was awarded benefits for her injuries in Workers’ Compensation Court. She also brought this tort action against Mills alleging her injuries were caused by Mills’ negligence. Mills filed a motion for summary judgment claiming the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Seaton’s exclusive remedy was against their employer in Workers’ Compensation Court pursuant to 85A O.S. 2019 §5(A). The trial court agreed and granted the motion. We reverse and remand for the trial court to determine whether Mills was in the course and scope of her employment at the time of the accident. If she was in the course and scope of her employment, the immunity from civil suit created by 85 O.S. Supp. 2019 §5(A) extends to her and judgment as a matter of law is proper. If she was not in the course and scope of her employment, she has no immunity under §5(A) and the case shall proceed. Opinion by MITCHELL, C.J.; BELL, J., concurs, and PRINCE, P.J., specially concurs. August 10, 2023
Division IV
120,841 – In the Matter of L.J., Z.T., Alleged Deprived Children: Latoya Adair, Appellant, vs. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Kaitlyn Allen, Trial Judge. In her brief-in-chief, the appellant neither cites to any portion of the record nor makes any specific contention of error that might necessitate reversal. Rather, the appellant simply invites this Court to “exercise sound discretion in its authority to review the case record and find any issue or position beneficial to Appellant Mother and rule accordingly and favorably on Mother’s behalf.” Brief-in-Chief, pg. 3. The brief is entirely inadequate, and thus, this appeal could be dismissed under Supreme Court Rule 1.2 for material noncompliance with Rule 1.11 (e) and (f). Nevertheless, because of the fundamental nature of the rights of the appellant involved, we have canvassed the full record to determine whether the district court’s order of termination is supported by clear-and-convincing evidence. See Matter of S.B.C., 2002 OK 83, ¶ 6, 64 P.3d, 1080, 1082. Because it is, we affirm under Supreme Court Rule 1.202 (b) and (d). AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV by BLACKWELL, P.J.; FISCHER, J., and HUBER, J., concur. August 10, 2023
120,293 – Matter of the Application of Troy Kenneth Sutherlin to Issue Title. Troy Kenneth Sutherlin, Appellant, vs. Dataline Energy Services, LLC, Appellee. Appeal from Order of the District Court of Cleveland County, Hon. Scott F. Brockman, Trial Judge, which granted Dataline’s motion to vacate a June 2016 order issuing Sutherlin certificates of title to two vehicles. Dataline claimed that the order was void because it was a known, interested party entitled to notice of Sutherlin’s application for certificate of title. We find the case appropriate for summary affirmance pursuant to Oklahoma Supreme Court Rule 1.202, 12 O.S.2021, ch. 15, app. 1. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV by FISCHER, J.; HUBER, J., concurs, and BLACKWELL, P.J., dissents. August 9, 2023