Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | Aug. 30, 2023
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
120,717 – Flatlander Energy, LLC, Applicant/Appellee, v. Empire Petroleum, LLC, Protestant/Appellant, and BNSF Railway Company and Prize Energy Resources, L.P., Respondents. Appeal from an order of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission. Protestant/Appellant Empire Petroleum, LLC, appeals from a pooling order entered on the application of Applicant/Appellee Flatlander Energy, LLC. Empire waived its objections to Flatlander’s application and Empire failed to show it was entitled to an order reopening the application. The Commission’s order is supported by substantial evidence and we affirm. Opinion by SWINTON, J.; GOREE, P.J., and DOWNING, J., CONCUR. Aug. 23, 2023
Division II
120,380 – Skylar Elizabeth Carter, Petitioner/Appellee, v. Daniel James Hodge, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Pottawatomie County, Hon. Emily Mueller, Trial Judge. Daniel James Hodge appeals an order of protection entered in favor of Skylar Elizabeth Carter on the basis of harassment. After review of the record and relevant law, we find Carter did not meet the statutory requirements for an order of protection. Accordingly, we reverse the order of the trial court and remand with instructions to vacate the order of protection and dismiss the petition. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by HIXON, J.; BARNES, V.C.J., and WISEMAN, P.J., concur. Aug. 23, 2023
120,290 – In re the Marriage of: Jessica Elayne Arnold, Petitioner/Appellee, v. Kevin Warren Arnold, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Okmulgee County, Hon. Cynthia Pickering, Trial Judge. Kevin Warren Arnold (Husband) appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to vacate and for new trial. We conclude the narrative statement signed and approved by the district court contradicts Husband’s assertions to the contrary which therefore lack merit. In addition, because a pretrial conference was not mandatory in this non-jury marital dissolution proceeding, Husband’s argument to the contrary also lacks merit. We conclude Husband has failed to demonstrate that any decision of the district court is clearly contrary to the weight of the evidence. Consequently, we affirm the district court’s order denying Husband’s motion to vacate and for new trial. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by BARNES, V.C.J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and HIXON, J., concur. Aug. 23, 2023
120,974 – Multiple Injury Trust Fund, Petitioner, vs. Dana L. Benton and The Workers’ Compensation Commission, Respondents. Appeal from the Workers’ Compensation Commission En Banc. The Multiple Injury Trust Fund (MITF) appeals an order of the Workers’ Compensation Commission En Banc affirming the decision of the Administrative Law Judge finding Claimant Dana L. Benton is permanently and totally disabled and thus entitled to MITF benefits. After review, we conclude this decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission (WCC) is supported by substantial evidence in the record. Finding no other error, we affirm the WCC’s order. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; BARNES, V.C.J., and HIXON, J., concur. Aug. 23, 2023
120,336 – Keith Smith, Petitioner/Appellant, vs. Angela Smith, Respondent/ Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Martha Oakes, Trial Judge. Keith Smith (Father) appeals from a trial court order denying his motion to reconsider the court’s order declining to give him credit for a lump sum payment of $13,695 and instead ordering reimbursement to him for an overpayment of $5,202.18 based on a modification date of January 13, 2020. Mother counter-appeals the trial court’s order awarding Father attorney fees and costs totaling $8,000. We affirm the trial court’s order denying Father’s motion to reconsider the court’s order regarding child support overpayment. And based on the record before us, we also affirm the order awarding Father attorney fees and costs totaling $8,000. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; BARNES, V.C.J., and HIXON, J., concur. Aug. 29, 2023
Division III
120,394 – In Re the Marriage of: Rebecca Arthur, Petitioner/Appellee, v. Roy Arthur, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Kasey Baldwin, Trial Judge. Respondent/Appellant, Roy Arthur (“Father”), has appealed an Order denying his Motion for New Trial and his Motions to Modify Child Support. Father filed four separate Motions to Modify Child Support during the pendency of these proceedings. After the (First) Motion to Modify was resolved by agreement (reached at mediation), Father filed his (Second) and (Third) Motions to Modify Child Support. He alleged that, less than two months after mediation, his income dropped from over $11,000.00 per month to $3,333.33 per month. A trial was held and the trial court denied Father’s requests to modify child support. Father then filed a (Fourth) Motion to Modify Child Support and a Motion for New Trial. After the trial court denied Father’s (Fourth) Motion and his Motion for New Trial, he initiated this appeal. We have reviewed the record and applicable law and find that the Orders of the trial court denying Father’s Motions do not constitute error. The Order of the Court, April 6, 2022, is, therefore, AFFIRMED. Opinion by PRINCE, P.J.; MITCHELL, C.J., and BELL, J., concur. Aug. 25, 2023
120,419 – Robert Strong, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CSAA Fire & Casualty Insurance Company, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Rogers County, Oklahoma. Honorable Sheila A. Condren, Trial Judge. In this action for bad faith, Plaintiff/Appellant, Robert Strong, appeals from the district court’s judgment awarding attorney fees and costs to Defendant/Appellee, CSAA Fire & Casualty Insurance Company (Company). The district court’s order determined Company’s potential exposure exceeded the damage amount of $75,000.00, this involved difficult and novel issues, Company obtained excellent results and the attorney’s time records demonstrated appropriate tasks. The court calculated the lodestar amount of attorney fees incurred at the trial court and appellate level to be $70,151.30 and $4,071.00, respectively. The court awarded $4,273.53 in trial court costs and $413.07 in appellate costs. We AFFIRM the district court’s order pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 1.202(d), 12 O.S. 2021, Ch. 15, App. Opinion by BELL, J.; MITCHELL, C.J., concurs and PRINCE, P.J., concurs in part and dissents in part. Aug. 25, 2023
Division IV