Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | Aug. 28, 2024
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
121,189 – Thomas A. Frey d/b/a Accucast, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Therman Specialties, LLC, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Kirsten E. Pace, Trial Judge. Defendant/Appellant Thermal Specialties, LLC, appeals from a judgment entered in favor of Plaintiff/Appellee Thomas A. Frey, d/b/a Accucast, following a bench trial. The record shows Accucast hired Thermal to heat-treat aluminum products. Accucast sued Thermal for negligence, alleging some of its products were damaged by Thermal. In response, Thermal argued that online terms and conditions limited its liability for damages. Following a bench trial, the court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law, finding the parties had entered an implied contract which Thermal breached by damaging the products, and awarding $5,297.75 in damages. The trial court found Thermal failed to show Accucast had assented to incorporation of online terms and conditions which were referenced in a credit application, shipping notices, and invoices. Competent evidence supports the judgment and we affirm. Opinion by SWINTON, P.J.; BELL, V.C.J., and PRINCE, J. concur. August 22, 2024
121,499 – In the matter of the estate of: Will Roger Armstrong, Deceased, Dan Armstrong, Personal Representative of the Estate of Will Roger Armstrong. Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Deborah Lynn Wheeler and Stacey Lynn Wheeler, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Pushmataha County, Oklahoma. Honorable Jana Kay Wallace, Trial Judge. In this action to set aside a deed for undue influence and lack of legal capacity to convey real property, Plaintiff/Appellant, Dan Armstrong, Personal Representative of the Estate of Will Roger Armstrong (Decedent), deceased, appeals from the trial court’s findings of facts and conclusions of law and order, and the court’s journal entry of judgment overruling Plaintiff’s petition to set aside deed. Plaintiff brought this action against his sister and her husband, Defendants/Appellees, Deborah and Stacey Wheeler (Grantees), alleging the conveyance of real property by Decedent, their father, to Grantees was void because their father lacked the legal capacity to execute the deed, Grantees were in a confidential relationship with Decedent, and Decedent was unduly influenced by Grantees to execute the deed. After a trial, the trial court upheld the deed ruling Decedent was legally competent to convey the real property and Grantees did not exercise any undue influence on Decedent. We hold the trial court’s judgment upholding validity of deed is not against clear weight of the evidence and AFFIRM. Opinion by BELL, V.C.J.; SWINTON, P.J., and PRINCE, J., concur. August 22, 2024
121,210 – William and Cindy Wood, Petitioner/Appellees, v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Rogers County, Oklahoma. Honorable Susan A. Nigh, Trial Judge. Appellant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company appeals from the trial court’s order granting the Petition for Appointment of Umpire filed by Petitioners/Appellees William and Cindy Wood. The Woods’ property was damaged in a storm while it was insured by State Farm. After State Farm paid less than the amount the Woods sought in their claim, the Woods demanded an appraisal of the amount of loss. State Farm refused to participate in the appraisal, asserting the parties’ dispute is over coverage without explanation. In response, the Woods petitioned the trial court to appoint an umpire. The policy provides that upon demand, the other party will appoint an appraiser. It also allows a party to seek court appointment of an umpire if the parties’ chosen appraisers cannot agree on the amount of loss and on whom to appoint as umpire. The Woods were entitled to invoke the appraisal process and State Farm thwarted that process by refusing to name an appraiser. Because there was no agreement between appraisers on the amount of loss, the trial court had authority to name an umpire. State Farm has not presented a record showing it identified an actual coverage issue below. Additionally, it is settled in Oklahoma that appraisal awards are not binding on the non-invoking party and the parties retain their rights to litigate coverage after appraisal. Accordingly, State Farm has not shown that it would be harmed by an appraisal in this case. We affirm. Opinion by SWINTON, P.J.; BELL, V.C.J., and PRINCE, J., concur.
121,329 – Robert Lenhart, Petitioner/Appellee, v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. Honorable Brent C. Dishman, Trial Judge. Respondent/Appellant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company appeals from the trial court’s order denying its motion to reconsider its order compelling State Farm to participate in appraisal of an insurance claim filed by Petitioner/Appellee Robert Lenhart. State Farm insured Lenhart’s property while it was damaged in a storm. After State Farm paid less than the amount the Lenhart sought, Lenhart demanded an appraisal of the amount of loss. State Farm refused to participate in the appraisal, citing coverage disputes. In response, Lenhart petitioned the trial court to appoint an umpire. The trial court granted relief to Lenhart in an order compelling State Farm to participate in the appraisal. Although the policy allows a party to seek court appointment of an umpire, appraisers are allowed to determine only the amount of loss. State Farm presented evidentiary materials supporting its contention that the parties’ dispute was over coverage and causation rather than the amount of loss. Therefore, the trial court erred in compelling State Farm to participate in appraisal. We reverse the denial of the motion to reconsider and remand with directions to vacate the order compelling State Farm to participate in appraiser. Opinion by SWINTON, P.J.; BELL, V.C.J., and PRINCE, J., concur.
121,902 – West Avenue Investments, LLC; 151 Bixby, LLC, and The Dorothy L. Biggers Trust, Appellants, v. Bixby Dutcher Sand Unit; Quad Operating Company; Singer Bros; and Corporation Commission J. Todd Hiett, ex. rel., Corporation Commission of Oklahoma; Commissioner Bob Anthony, et. rel., Corporation Commission of Oklahoma; Commissioner Kim David, ex. rel., Corporation Commission of Oklahoma, Appellees. Appeal from the Oklahoma Corporation Commission. Appellants, West Avenue Investments, LLC, 151 Bixby, LLC, and the Dorothy L. Biggers Trust (“Applicants”), appeal an Order issued by the Corporation Commission of Oklahoma (“Commission”) that granted a motion to dismiss (which was entitled “Amended Motion to Dismiss Amended Application”). Applicants sought to terminate a unitized area of land claiming, inter alia, that operation of the Unit is no longer economically viable, and that continuation of the Unit is not for the common good and general advantage of the owners of the mineral interests. The Commission held that Applicants could only seek termination of the Unit by following the provision for termination set forth in the Plan of Unitization. We have reviewed the record and applicable law and find that the jurisdiction of the Commission is not so limited and that the case must be remanded for a determination of the merits of the case under 52 O.S. § 112, including whether substantial evidence exists which shows a change of condition or knowledge of condition and whether termination of the Unit would prevent waste and protect the correlative rights of persons interested in said Unit. See OAC 165:5-1-2(c); OAC 165:5-7-20(c); 52 O.S. §§ 111 & 112. The Order of the Commission is, therefore, REVERSED and the matter is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. Opinion by PRINCE, J.; BELL, V.C.J., and SWINTON, P.J., concur.
121,031 – Jennifer Benitscheck Taylor, Petitioner/Appellee, v. The Oklahoma Water Resources Board, An Agency of the State of Oklahoma. Respondent/Appellant, and Sequoyah County Conservation District, Interested Parties/Intervenors. Interested Parties/Intervenors. Appeal from the District court of equohah County, Oklahoma. Honorable Jeffrey Payton, District Judge. Respondent/Appellant, the Oklahoma Water Resources Board, has appealed the Sequoyah County District Court’s January 10, 2023, Order, that reversed the Order of August 21, 2018, by the OWRD. The OWRD had declared, in response to the declaratory ruling request, that a dam, known as the Sallisaw Creek Site No. 33, is a “high hazard” dam. The district court reversed the OWRB’s Declaratory Ruling based upon its erroneous interpretation of certain correspondence from 1991 between the OWRB, the Oklahoma Conservation Commission, and Intervenor, the Sequoyah County Conservation District. The OWRB interpreted the 1991 correspondence to have created certain conditions for the classification of the dam site to be lowered from “high hazard” to “significant hazard”, including the completion of the proposed repairs. The district court determined, however, that upon the OWRB’s general approval of the SCCD’s Application, Site 33 was formally reclassified from a “high hazard” dam to a “significant hazard” dam regardless as to whether the proposed repairs were completed. We agree with the interpretation of that correspondence made by the OWRB and find that it should be affirmed based upon the appropriate standard of review. Accordingly, the district court’s Order reversing the OWRB’s Board Order is REVERSED and VACATED, and the OWRB’s Board Order declaring Sallisaw Creek Site No. 33 as a “high hazard” dam is AFFIRMED. Opinion by PRINCE, J.; BELL, V.C.J., and SWINTON, P.J., concur.
Division II
121,413 – Nga Nguyen, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Tri Minh Nguyen, Defendant/Appellee, and Thai Minh Nguyen, Defendant. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Aletia Haynes Timmons, Trial Judge. Nga Nguyen appeals from a judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of Tri Minh Nguyen on his claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) and appeals from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Appellee on her claim for breach of fiduciary duty. We conclude the trial court erred in determining that Appellant’s conduct met the threshold determination of outrageous conduct needed for IIED liability and in submitting the IIED claim to the jury. Consequently, we reverse the court’s judgment entered upon the jury’s verdict and remand with directions to enter judgment to Appellant on Appellee’s IIED claim. We further conclude the grant of summary judgment to Appellee on Appellant’s breach of fiduciary duty claim was improvidently granted because genuine issues of material fact remain to be determined by the trier of fact. Consequently, we reverse and remand for further proceedings on this claim. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS IN PART AND REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN PART. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by BARNES, C.J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. August 22, 2024
121,848 – Lisa Hoover, Trustee of the McBane Family Trust, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Charlene Gant McBane, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Logan County, Hon. Phillip Corley, Trial Judge. Plaintiff Lisa Hoover, Trustee of the McBane Family Trust, appeals the trial court’s order denying her motion for summary judgment. In its order, the trial court identified the question before it as whether the quitclaim deed conveyed marketable title to the Trust. After analyzing the requirements of Oklahoma Title Examination Standard § 7.2, 16 O.S.2021, ch. 7, app., the court concluded the deed did not meet those requirements and found the deed to be invalid. The trial court then returned the case to the probate court “to determine what interest the parties have in the Decedent’s estate.” Our review indicates the trial court did not determine whether Charlene, as Decedent Weslie McBane’s wife, is allowed a forced elective share or entitled to a homestead exemption or any other interest in the subject estate, leaving that to the probate court. The trial court only determined whether the quitclaim deed validly conveyed marketable title to the property to the Trust. We agree with the trial court that the requirements of Standard 7.2 have not been met as explained in Charlene’s response to the motion for summary judgment. The probate court has issues to determine regarding Weslie’s estate, and we agree with the trial court’s decision invalidating the deed to the Trust and sending the remaining issues back to the probate court to determine the parties’ interest in the estate. The decision of the trial court is affirmed. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; BARNES, C.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. August 21, 2024
121,054 – George Alhaj, M.D., Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Orthopaedic & Reconstructive Center, P.C., d/b/a Orthopedic Institute; Hospital for Special Surgery, LLC, d/b/a Orthopedic Hospital; Rehab America, Inc., d/b/a The Therapy Center; Central Oklahoma Anesthesia and Pain Management Services, Inc., and Swomri, Inc., Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Anthony L. Bonner, Trial Judge. Plaintiff appeals from the district court’s orders granting a petition to vacate and denying his amended motion to confirm and reduce to judgment an arbitrator’s award. The district court’s decision to vacate a default judgment based on irregularities is not manifestly unreasonable or clearly against reason and evidence. Therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion in this regard. However, we conclude the court erred in denying Plaintiff’s amended motion to confirm, and it follows that issues remain unaddressed in the first instance by the trial court. Therefore, we remand this case to the district court for further proceedings. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by BARNES, C.J.; WISEMAN, P.J., concurs, and FISCHER, J., concurs in result. August 23, 2024
121,382 – Kendal Minmier (now Huber), Petitioner/Appellant, v. James Guy Minmier Jr., Respondent/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Honorable Barry L. Hafar, Trial Judge. In this divorce action, Kendal Minmier (now Huber) (Wife) appeals the trial court’s order dividing marital assets and liabilities after an evidentiary hearing on remand pursuant to Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Opinion in Case No. 118,270. We are asked to review whether having an evidentiary hearing on this issue is inconsistent with COCA’s Opinion and whether the trial court followed the directive of that Opinion in its property division. After review, we affirm the decision of the trial court. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J. BARNES, C.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. August 27, 2024
121,721 – Danielle Shade, Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Honorable Kaitlyn Allen, Trial Judge. Danielle Shade (Mother) appeals a trial court order denying her motion to vacate the relinquishment of her parental rights. The issues before us are whether Mother established the trial court (1) abused its discretion in denying her motion to vacate, or (2) violated her due process rights. After review, we conclude Mother did not show the trial court abused its discretion or otherwise erred and we affirm the trial court’s order. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J. BARNES, C.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. August 27, 2024
Division III
Division IV
121,275 – Coryell Roofing & Construction, Inc., Plaintiff/Appellee, vs. Burgess Farms, LLC, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Don Andrews, Trial Judge. Burgess Farms, LLC (Defendant) appeals the trial court’s journal entry of judgment entering the jury’s award of $178,000.00 for breach of contract in favor of Coryell Roofing and Construction, Inc. (Plaintiff). Defendant alleges the trial court erred by declining to grant it a directed verdict on Plaintiff’s breach of contract action and by refusing to instruct the jury on a negligence theory of recovery of its counterclaim. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we find the trial court properly declined to grant Defendant a directed verdict on Plaintiff’s action but erred by failing to instruct the jury on Defendant’s negligence theory of recovery. Accordingly, we reverse the journal entry and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, J.; HUBER, P.J., concurs, and BLACKWELL, J., concurs in part and dissents in part. August 27, 2024
120,706 – David Post and Paula Post, husband and wife; Sarah Julian, as Trustee of the Sarah Julian Trust; Stacy Diane Post Winkler and Jacob Winkler, husband and wife; Max Thomas and Sheila Thomas, husband and wife; Kurt Thomas and Courtney Thomas, Plaintiffs/Appellees, vs. Devon Energy Production Company, LP and BP America Production Company, Defendants, Newfield Exploration Mid-Continent Inc. t/k/a Ovintiv USA Inc., Appellant. Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Kingfisher County, Hon. Lance Schneiter, Associate District Judge. Ovintiv USA Inc. appeals two decisions by the district court. The first is that an oil and gas lease given by the plaintiffs, the Posts, in the SE/4 of Section 22, Township 15N, Range 7W, Kingfisher County, expired in May 2013 because it failed to produce in paying quantities for a reasonable period. The second is that the Posts’ rights in the section were not pooled by a 2015 commission order because the Posts had not received the elected bonus and royalty payments. We affirm the first decision and reverse the second. AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV by BLACKWELL, J., HUBER, J., concurs, and FISCHER, J. (sitting by designation), dissents. August 22, 2024
121,935 – Dasovich Law Office, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. National American Ins. Co., Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Aletia Haynes Timmons, Trial Judge. Dasovich Law Office appeals a grant of summary judgment to National American Ins. Co. in a case concerning payment for legal services. We find no record sufficient to enable review or demonstrate error in the decision below. As such, the trial court decision is affirmed. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV by BLACKWELL, J.; HUBER, P.J., and HIXON, J., concur. August 22, 2024
121,951 – Rolling Oaks Apts., LLC, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff/Appellee, vs. Ralph Crump, an individual, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Don Andrews, Trial Judge. Ralph Crump (Defendant) appeals the district court’s journal entry of judgment entering summary judgment against it in favor of Rolling Oaks Apts., LLC (Plaintiff). The issue is whether Plaintiff met its burden of establishing entitlement to summary judgment against Defendant when the evidentiary materials submitted did not support the proposed undisputed material facts, and the motion provided no argument or authority showing how the alleged undisputed facts entitled Plaintiff to summary judgment. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, J.; HUBER, P.J., concurs, and BLACKWELL, J., concurs in result. August 23, 2024