Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | Dec. 10, 2025
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
Division II
Division III
122,013 – In re the Marriage of: Clayton Franklin, Petitioner/Appellee, v. Diane Brook Franklin, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. Honorable Sharon Wigdor Byers, Trial Judge. Petitioner/Appellee Clayton Franklin and Respondent/Appellant Diane Brooke Franklin were granted a divorce following twenty-three years of marriage. The wife appeals the court’s property division, including the classification and valuation of deferred compensation from the husband’s employer; the husband’s use of a joint account to pay an historically marital expenditure during the pendency of the case; and the amount of spousal support awarded to her. Following a review of the record and applicable law to determine whether the decree of dissolution of marriage is clearly contrary to the weight of the evidence, we hold as follows: as an initial matter, we hold the court erred in its determination that the parties separated on the date the petition was filed as the parties agreed to a future date of separation in the joint temporary order. Further, the court erred in the categorization of the husband’s unvested deferred compensation as his separate property as both the vested and unvested portions were acquired through the joint efforts of the spouses and are marital property. The deferred compensation award is reversed and remanded for an equitable distribution based on the agreed upon date of separation and not on the date the petition was filed. We find no error in the court’s valuation of marital assets or the court’s denial of the wife’s request for reimbursement of a payment the husband made from a joint account for a marital expense as the payment was permissible under the terms of the automatic temporary injunction, and we find no error in the court’s award of support alimony based on the wife’s failure to demonstrate additional need. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Opinion by MITCHELL, J.; DOWNING, P.J., concurs and BELL, C.J., concurs in part and dissents in part. December 4, 2025
122,718 – In the Matter of C.F., & R.F., Alleged Deprived Children, Brittney Howell, Petitioner/Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, Respondent/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Kevin Gray, Trial Judge. Natural Mother of two minor children appealed a judgment terminating her parental rights following a jury trial. The jury unanimously found several statutory bases for termination by clear and convincing evidence and, because the Indian Child Welfare Act applied to the proceedings, also found beyond a reasonable doubt and supported by the testimony of at least one expert witness, that continued custody of the minor children was likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage. On appeal, Natural Mother did not contest the jury’s finding as to the statutory bases. Rather, Natural Mother first argued that the scheduling of the jury trial was too quick and prevented proper preparation; because Natural Mother did not object to the trial setting or otherwise raise the issue, this Court rejects this argument. Second, Natural Mother contended that the State had failed to show it had made “active efforts” to provide remedial services and rehabilitation programs designed to prevent the breakup of the family, as required by ICWA; specifically, she contended that she struggled with transportation. Because the record showed extensive active efforts by ODHS (including providing bus passes and offers of transportation), and because the record showed that Natural Mother’s failure to engage with those services was primarily her choice and not due to lack of transportation, this argument is also rejected. Finally, Natural Mother argued that the expert witness’s testimony relating to likelihood of harm to the children was insufficient to support the jury’s finding. This Court finds the expert’s testimony adequately satisfied the jury’s determination, especially in combination with the other evidence adduced at trial. The termination of Natural Mother’s parental rights is AFFIRMED. Opinion by MITCHELL, J.; BELL, C.J., and DOWNING, P.J., concur. December 4, 2025
123,081 – Scott Young, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. James Young, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Beckham County, Oklahoma. Honorable Donna L. Dirickson, Trial Judge. Plaintiff/Appellant, Scott Young, sued his father, Defendant/Appellee, James Young, for false representation/deceit, unjust enrichment, declaratory action and quiet title. Plaintiff and his mother, Calesta Young, inherited real property in Beckham County from Calesta’s mother. In 2002 and 2003, Defendant and Calesta, husband and wife, purchased Plaintiff’s inherited real property for $45,000.00. Plaintiff claims he and his parents had an oral agreement that the Beckham County real property would revert/devolve or be bequeathed to Plaintiff upon the death of both parents. Plaintiff executed joint tenancy warranty deeds granting the real property to his parents. The deeds did not create a life estate in parents or reversionary interest in Plaintiff. Calesta died September 19, 2022. After Calesta’s death, Plaintiff learned his mother disinherited Plaintiff and that his father planned to do the same. After a bench trial, the trial court held any oral agreement merged into the deeds, Plaintiff failed to show fraud in the inducement, and Defendant paid sufficient consideration for the real property. The court granted judgment to Defendant and Plaintiff appealed. After de novo review of the record, this Court finds there are no material facts in dispute and that the trial court did not hold contrary to the weight of the evidence or applicable law when it granted judgment to Defendant. The trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. Opinion by BELL, C.J.; DOWNING, P.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. December 4, 2025
122,632 – In Re the Marriage of: Olga Kelesh, Petitioner/Appellee, v. Hakan Keles, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Mary Ann Godsby, Trial Judge. Appellant, Hakan Keles (Husband) appeals from the trial court’s issuance of the Decree of Divorce and Dissolution of Marriage. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we reject Husband’s arguments and AFFIRM. Opinion by DOWNING, P.J.; BELL, C.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. December 9, 2025
Division IV
123,057 – In the Matter of A.E., A.K., S.K., E.K., & B.K., alleged deprived children: Nicholas Kosyan, Appellant v. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Comanche County, Hon. Lisa Shaw, Trial Judge. Nicholas Kosyan (Father) appeals from an order of the district court appointing a permanent guardianship (Guardianship Order) over his minor children A.K., S.K., and E.K. (the Children). We conclude the district court’s Guardianship Order is not against the clear weight of the evidence. Rather it is supported by clear and convincing evidence of parental unfitness and that adoption was not the permanency plan. We further conclude the Guardianship Order without visitation did not nullify the jury’s verdict to not terminate Father’s parental rights in the prior termination of parental rights proceeding and conclude Father’s due process rights were not violated because no court reporter was provided for some permanency/review hearings. We, therefore, affirm the Guardianship Order. However, the Guardianship Order is deficient because it fails to make a specific factual finding of parental unfitness and a finding that adoption is not the permanency plan. Those findings, while fully supported in the evidentiary record, must be stated in the order. Consequently, we remand the matter to the district court to correct the order to reflect the required findings. Accordingly, we affirm and remand with directions. AFFIRMED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by BARNES, P.J.; HIXON, V.C.J., and HUBER, J., concur. December 4, 2025
121,455 – In re the Marriage of: Ernest A. Paccillo III, Petitioner/Appellant, vs. Traci J. Gibbs, Respondent/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Wagoner County, Hon. John Luton, Trial Judge. Ernest A. Paccillo III (Husband) appeals an award of sole legal custody of minor children to Traci J. Gibbs (Wife), and division of marital property set forth in the parties Divorce Decree. Husband asserts the trial court erred by failing to conduct in camera interviews to consider the children’s preference and erred in the valuation of certain marital property. On review of the record and briefs on appeal, we affirm the trial court’s determination of these issues as set forth in the decree. However, we find the trial court erred by denying Husband’s “Motion to Reconsider,” or modify, requesting the trial court enter orders removing him from the mortgage of the marital home, which was awarded solely to Wife. We remand for the trial court to consider whether Husband can and should be removed from the mortgage and how to affect any removal. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, V.C.J.; BARNES, P.J., and HUBER, J., concur. December 8, 2025
121,745 (Companion with Case No. 122,639) – In re the Marriage of: Natalie McDaniel, Petitioner/Appellant, vs. Joshua McDaniel, Respondent/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Lisa K. Hammond, Trial Judge. Natalie McDaniel (Wife) appeals the September 12, 2023 Decree of Dissolution of Marriage. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, the September 12, 2023 Decree of Dissolution of Marriage is therefore affirmed as modified. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, V.C.J.; BARNES, P.J., and HUBER, J., concur. December 9, 2025
122,639 (Companion with Case No. 121,745) – In re the Marriage of: Natalie McDaniel, Petitioner/Appellant, vs. Joshua McDaniel, Respondent/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Lisa K. Hammond, Trial Judge. Petitioner Natalie McDaniel (Wife) appeals an attorney fee award entered in favor of Joshua McDaniel (Husband) in this divorce proceeding. Wife asserts the trial court erred by failing to incorporate specific findings of fact into its order awarding $30,000 in fees against her and that the award is excessive, unreasonable and against the clear weight of evidence. On review of the record and the parties’ briefing, we hold the trial court’s order awarding fees is inadequate to provide for meaningful review. For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the trial court’s Journal Entry of September 27, 2024 awarding Husband attorney’s fees and remand for a new order on attorney’s fees and costs consistent with this opinion. VACATED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, V.C.J.; BARNES, P.J., and HUBER, J., concur. December 9, 2025