Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | Dec. 11, 2024
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
121,247 – Elite Service Company, Inc., an Oklahoma Corporation, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Xpert Plumbing, LLC, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company and Kozik & Sons Remodel and Construction LLC, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company, Defendants/Appellants. Appeal from the District Court of Waggner County, Oklahoma. Honorable Rebecca Hunter, Trial Judge. In this breach of contract action, Defendants/Appellants, Xpert Plumbing, LLC and Kozik & Sons Remodel and Construction, LLC (Contractors), appeal from the trial court’s journal entry denying their motion for new trial. Contractors sought a new trial on the trial court’s judgment entered after a bench trial in favor of Plaintiff/Appellee, Elite Service Company, Inc. (Owner). The parties entered into an agreement for Contractors to construct a concrete slab floor and install plumbing for Owner’s marijuana grow facility. Owner sued Contractors after hiring another company to correct the alleged improper drainage resulting from Contractors’ work. After a one-day trial, the trial court found the parties had an enforceable contract; Contractors breached the contract by failing to construct a concrete floor in a good and workmanlike manner; Contractors breached their implied warranty of fitness and the express warranties they made; and as a consequence of the breach, Owner sustained damages in the amount of $57,130.04. The court granted judgment to Owner for the amount of $57,130.04. The court later denied Contractors’ motion for new trial and awarded Owner attorney fees and costs of $33,374.07. Contractors appealed claiming the trial court committed reversable error when it refused to consider Contractors’ witnesses’ testimony and when it ruled against the weight of the evidence. After reviewing the record, we find the trial court’s underlying judgment in favor of Owner is supported by the competent evidence and that trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Contractors’ motion for new trial. We further hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it precluded Contractors from presenting the testimony of any witnesses other than William J. Kozik. The trial court’s underlying judgment in favor of Owner and the journal entry denying the motion for new trial are AFFIRMED. Opinion by BELL, V.C.J.; SWINTON, P.J., and PRINCE, J., concur. December 5, 2024
122,294 – The Seiter Farms Homeowners Association, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Kurt Rogers and Brenda Barnes, Husband and Wife, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Cort of Cleveland County, Oklahoma. Honorable Thad Balkman, Trial Judge. Plaintiff/Appellant the Seiter Farms Homeowners Association (HOA) appeals from summary judgment granted in favor of Defendants/Appellees Kurt Rogers and Brenda Barnes (collectively, Homeowners). Our de novo review shows the material facts are not in dispute and Homeowners are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We affirm. Opinion by SWINTON, P.J.; BELL, V.C.J., and PRINCE, J., concur. December 5, 2024
122,247 – In the Matter of J.L., and V.J., Alleged Deprived Children, Ashley Miller, Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Beckham County, Oklahoma. Honorable Michelle Kirby Roper, Trial Judge. Appellant, Ashley Miller (“Mother”), appeals Orders terminating her parental rights to two children, V.J. and J.L. The children were taken into custody by the Department of Human Services (“DHS”) and two separate Individualized Service Plans (“ISPs”) were established. The Appellee, State of Oklahoma (“State”), ultimately sought termination of Mother’s parental rights. A jury returned a verdict terminating Mother’s parental rights to both children: to V.J., for failure to correct conditions which led to the deprived adjudication; and, to V.J., for having been in foster care for six out of the most recent twelve months prior to the filing of the petition to terminate. The jury also returned a verdict terminating Mother’s parental rights to J.L. for failure to correct conditions which led to the deprived adjudication and for having a sibling with a prior deprived adjudication. Mother argues on appeal that her due process rights were violated when the State filed amended pleadings just prior to trial and did not allow her sufficient time to defend against the allegations. She additionally asserts that a question regarding pending criminal charges constitutes error that requires reversal. We have reviewed the record and find that Mother’s right to due process was not violated nor was there a question allowed that resulted in prejudicial error requiring reversal. We, therefore, AFFIRM the Orders terminating Mother’s parental rights to V.J. and J.L. Opinion byPRINCE, J.; BELL, V.C.J., and SWINTON, P.J., concur. December 6, 2024
Division II
121,931 – Mark A. Pendergraft, an individual, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Kelly Meredith-McCann, a/k/a Kelly Williams, an individual, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. C. Brent Dishman, Trial Judge. In this appeal, Plaintiff seeks review of the district court’s Order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss and effectively denying Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendant’s motion. Because Defendant’s motion to dismiss was not timely filed, we conclude the district court abused its discretion in failing to grant Plaintiff’s motion to strike. Consequently, we reverse the district court’s Order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by BARNES, C.J.; WISEMAN, J., concurs, and FISCHER, J., dissents. December 4, 2024
Division III
121,283 – In re the Marriage of: Troy Baker, Petitioner/Appellant/Counter-Appellee, v. Anita Baker, Respondent/Appellee/Counter-Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Kasey Baldwin, Trial Judge. Petitioner/Appellant/Counter-Appellee Tory Baker (Husband) and Respondent/Appellee/Counter-Appellant Anita Baker (Wife) each seek review of their decree of dissolution of marriage. Each party also appeals from the trial court’s order granting in part and denying in part their requests for post-trial relief. Husband contends the court abused its discretion by awarding Wife support alimony, while Wife contends the court should have awarded more. Husband argues the court should not have equally divided his Fidelity brokerage account. Wife claims the court erred by failing to include in the marital estate all of the funds Husband received from his employer for restricted stock unit awards, and she argues the court inequitably divided the portion it deemed marital. Wife further claims the court erroneously failed to award more child support, to award retroactive spousal support, and to require Husband to pay for half of a vehicle for the parties’ son. Opinion by MITCHELL, P.J.; GOREE, J., and DOWNING, J., concur. December 6, 2024
121,426 – Eddie Williams and Marie Williams, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. John Wayne Williams, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Le Flore County, Oklahoma. Honorable Jon Sullivan, Trial Judge. Plaintiffs/Appellants, Eddie and Marie Williams, seek review of the LeFlore County District Court order of July 20, 2023 which denied Appellants’ Motion to Vacate the settlement agreement and Motion for New Trial. Based on the record provided, we AFFIRM the order of the district court. Opinion by GOREE, J.; MITCHELL, P.J., and DOWNING, J., concur. December 6, 2024
121,900 – Khalil Abbus II, Appellant, v. DCCC Warden David Louthan, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Osage County, Oklahoma. Honorable Stuart Tate, Trial Judge. Appellant, Khalil Abbus (Abbus), appeals the district court’s denial of his request for a preliminary injunction. Abbus sought relief from the district court, specifically seeking an injunction against Appellee, David Louthan (Warden Louthan), Warden of Dick Conner Correctional Center. Abbus alleged Warden Louthan retaliated against him for filing of multiple grievances. After a review of the record and the applicable law, this case is DISMISSED. Opinion by DOWNING, J.; MITCHELL, P.J., and GOREE, J., concur. December 6, 2024
Division IV
122,063 – Derrick R. Scott, Petitioner/Appellant, vs. Candice J. Foster, Respondent/Appellee. Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Blaine County, Oklahoma, Hon. Paul K. Woodward, Trial Judge. Derrick Scott appeals the court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Candice Foster. The court found that Mr. Scott’s petition seeking to adjudicate the paternity of Ms. Foster’s child, was time barred as it was filed two years after the relevant statute of limitations expired. Upon review, we agree. Even after all potential equitable extensions to the statute of limitations are accounted for, Mr. Scott’s petition was filed at least two years after the statute of limitations expired. We thereby affirm the trial court’s judgment. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV by BLACKWELL, J.; HUBER, P.J., and HIXON, J., concur. December 4, 2024
121,279 – In re the Marriage of: Christina Ann Staab, Petitioner/Appellee/Counter-Appellant, vs. Jeremy Ryan Staab, Respondent/Appellant/Counter-Appellee. Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Garfield County, Hon. Tom l. Newby, District Judge. Jeremy and Christina Staab each appeal different aspects of their divorce decree. On review, we find that the trial court committed no error and thereby affirm. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV by BLACKWELL, J.; HUBER, P.J., and HIXON, J., concur. December 6, 2024
120,825 – Sun Surety Insurance Company, Petitioner/Appellee, vs. State of Oklahoma ex rel. Glen Mulready, Insurance Commissioner, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Aletia Haynes Timmons, Trial Judge. State of Oklahoma, ex. rel. Glen Mulready, Insurance Commissioner, appeals the district court’s journal entry of judgment reversing the Oklahoma Insurance Department’s final administrative order upholding a $250 fine imposed against Sun Surety Insurance Company for an alleged untimely bond forfeiture payment. The primary issue is whether the district court erred in finding the payment was timely based on its interpretation of 59 O.S.2021, § 1332 and Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC) 365:25-5-40. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we reverse the judgment and affirm the administrative order. REVERSED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, J.; HUBER, P.J., and BLACKWELL, J., concur. December 6, 2024
122,515 – Dustin Peterson and Andra Erbar, Plaintiffs/Appellants, vs. Lawrence E. Wolf and Ruth M. Wolf, Defendants/Appellees, and Loan Depot.com, LLC, Interested Party. Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Natalie Mai, District Judge. AFFIRMED UNDER RULE 1.202(A) AND (E). Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV by BLACKWELL, J.; HUBER, P.J., and HIXON, J., concur. December 10, 2024