Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | Aug. 24, 2022
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division II
119,615 — Marquenisha McKinnley, for herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff/Appellee, vs. Town of Valley Brook, Oklahoma, A Municipal Corporation, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from an order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Richard C. Ogden, Trial Judge. Defendant Town of Valley Brook, Oklahoma, appeals the trial court’s order granting Plaintiff Marquenisha McKinnley’s motion for class certification. After review of the record and applicable law, based on recent binding Supreme Court precedent, we must summarily reverse the trial court’s order pursuant to Oklahoma Supreme Court Rule 1.201, 12 O.S. Supp. 2020, ch. 15, app. 1. SUMMARILY REVERSED PURSUANT TO RULE 1.201. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; BLACKWELL, J., and BARNES, J. (sitting by designation), concur. August 17, 2022
Division III
120,078 – Rebecca Renolds, Petitioner, v. Connors State College, Compsource Mutual Insurance Company and the Workers’ Compensation Court of Existing Claims, Respondents. Proceeding to Review an Order of a Three-Judge Panel of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Existing Claims. Petitioner Rebecca Reynolds (Claimant) appeals from an order of a three-judge panel of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Existing Claims, which affirmed the trial court’s order finding Claimant’s request for permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits was barred by Claimant’s failure to timely prosecute the claim. Claimant’s request for shoulder surgery was approved by the court and affirmed by a three-judge panel on September 5, 2014, but Claimant did not undergo surgery and took no action to further pursue her claim until July 6, 2018. After de novo review, we find the court and panel properly applied 85 O.S. Supp. 2005 §43(B). The court’s miscellaneous 2015 order holding the case in abeyance until Claimant appeared for surgery did not toll the three-year time limit provided in §43(B) for seeking a final determination of her compensation claim. Accordingly, we sustain. Opinion by MITCHELL, V.C.J.; PRINCE, P.J., and SWINTON, J., CONCUR. August 19. 2022
120,291 – In the Matter of the Estate of David R. Cooley, Deceased. Marcia A. Boyd, Personal Representative, Petitioner/Ancillary Defendant/Appellant, v. Eric Oliphant and Nancy B. Oliphant, Claimants/Ancillary Petitioners/Appellees, Consolidated With: In the Matter of David Cooley Living Trust. Marcia A. Boyd, Malinda Cervantes, and Dianna Lozada, Petitioners/Counter-Defendant/Appellants, v. Eric Oliphant and Nancy B. Oliphant, Respondents Counter-Claimants/Plaintiffs/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Kurt Glassco, Trial Judge. Appellants Marcia A. Boyd, Malinda Cervantes, and Dianna Lozada appeal from a certified order granting summary judgment to Appellees Nancy B. Oliphant and Eric Oliphant. Appellants also appeal from an order granting prevailing party attorney fees to the Oliphants. The record shows no dispute of material fact and the Oliphants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The record also shows no abuse of discretion in the award of attorney fees. The orders on appeal adequately explain the trial court’s decisions and we therefore affirm by summary opinion under Supreme Court Rule 1.202(d). Opinion by SWINTON, J.; PRINCE, P.J., MITCHELL, V.C.J. CONCUR. August 19, 2022
Division IV
119,968 – In the Matter of the Estate of Anthony Worth Analla, Deceased: Anthony M. Analla and Lauren A. Analla, Appellants, v. Terri Analla, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Allen J. Welch, Trial Judge. In this probate proceeding, Appellants claim they are pretermitted heirs under the will of their deceased father, Anthony Worth Analla, and appeal from the trial court’s order granting Appellee’s cross-motion for summary judgment, finding, among other matters, that Appellants are not pretermitted. We conclude the trial court’s findings that Appellee’s effort to incorporate a certain trust by reference into the will is timely and that Appellants are not pretermitted heirs are not clearly against the weight of the evidence or a governing principle of law. We, therefore, affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Appellee. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by BARNES, P.J.; FISCHER, C.J., and HIXON, J., concur. August 17, 2022.
118,964 – CCK, Inc., Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Sonic Drive-In of Hennessey, Oklahoma; KaCe, Inc., Clifford L. Vogt; and John Doe, Defendants/Appellees, and Clifford L. Vogt and KaCe, Inc., Third-Party Plaintiffs/Appellees, vs. Carla Watkins and CCK, Inc., Third-Party Defendants/Appellants. Appeal from Order of the District Court of Kingfisher County, Oklahoma, Hon. Paul K. Woodward, Trial Judge. Appellants Carla Watkins and CCK, Inc. appeal the district court’s judgment in favor of Appellees Clifford L. Vogt and KaCe, Inc. in the underlying action for breach of contract and conversion. We find that the district court correctly determined that the parties’ 1989 partnership agreement contained a mutual mistake and was not a true reflection of the parties’ intent. However, it was error for the district court to reform the contract in a manner that was inconsistent with clear and convincing evidence of the parties’ intent evidenced by a prior partnership agreement. Article XII, paragraph 12(a) of the 1989 partnership agreement should be interpreted as it originally appeared in the 1982 partnership agreement. The judgment of the district court is vacated and this case is remanded for a determination of the amount of Watkins’ interest in the Hennessey Sonic Drive-In franchise consistent with this Opinion. VACATED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by FISCHER, C.J., BARNES, P.J., and HIXON, J., concur. August 22, 2022