Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | Dec. 17, 2025
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
122,406 – In Re the Marriage of: Andrea L. Ivory, now Curry, Petitioner/Appellee v. Tyrone M. Ivory, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Cleveland County, Oklahoma. Honorable Lynne McGuire, Trial Judge. Respondent/Appellant Tyrone Ivory (Father) appeals from an order directing him to pay childcare costs to Petitioner/Appellee Andrea Ivory (now Curry) (Mother). Father argues that the trial court erred in ordering him to pay for costs which were never incurred and where Mother failed to comply with both statutory and court-ordered notice obligations. We reverse and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Opinion by SWINTON, J.; GOREE, P.J., and PRINCE, J., concur. December 16, 2025
122,656 – In the Matter of H.G., Deprived Child. State of Oklahoma, Petitioner/Appellee, v. Caitlin Cawhorn, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Rogers County, Oklahoma. Honorable Tamera Childers, Trial Judge. Respondent/Appellant Caitlin Cawhorn (Mother) appeals from the denial of her motion to vacate the judgment terminating her parental rights to H.G. for failure to correct the conditions leading to the deprived adjudication and for recurrence of abuse or neglect. Petitioner/Appellee the State of Oklahoma presented clear and convincing evidence supporting the jury’s verdict and we find no abuse of discretion in the denial of the motion to vacate. We therefore affirm. Opinion by SWINTON, J.; GOREE, P.J., and PRINCE, J., concur. December 16, 2025
123,197 – In the Matter of R.H., Alleged Deprived Child, Kenneth Hervery, Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Mary Ann Godsby, Trial Judge. Appellant, Kenneth Hervey (“Hervey”) appeals an Order Terminating Parental Rights. The child, R.H., was taken into emergency custody by the Department of Human Services (“DHS”) approximately one week after the date of the child’s birth in October 2023. Appellee, the State of Oklahoma, sought immediate termination of Hervey’s parental rights. Nevertheless, after R.H. was adjudicated deprived, Hervey was provided with an Individualized Service Plan (“ISP”) and given the opportunity to correct the conditions that led to the deprived adjudication. State ultimately sought termination, and a jury returned unanimous verdicts terminating Hervey’s parental rights. Hervey claims on appeal that DHS did not provide reasonable efforts to assist him, and, inter alia, Hervey claims that State did not carry its burden to demonstrate that termination was supported by clear and convincing evidence. We disagree with Hervey’s contentions and find that the Order Terminating Parental Rights should be AFFIRMED. Opinion by PRINCE, J.; GOREE, P.J., and SWINTON, J., concur. December 16, 2025
123,310 – In the Matter of: T.R., R.F., and C.F., Alleged Deprived Children, Ryan Leon French, Appellant, v. The State of Oklahoma, Tulsa County, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Kevin Gray, Trial Judge. The order adjudicating children deprived as to Appellant is reversed based on the precedent of Matter of J.O., 2024 OK 82, 561 P.3d 1118, because Appellant’s due process rights were violated during the trial. After the lunch break, Appellant’s video feed via a Teams link from the Okmulgee County Jail was not reconnected but the trial continued without him. In Matter of J.O., the prison disconnected the father’s video feed during the lunch break of the termination proceedings. Opinion by GOREE, P.J.; SWINTON, J., and PRINCE, J., concur. December 16, 2025
Division II
Division III
122,862 – Newport Village Homeowners’ Association, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant/Appellee, v. Lu-Ray Petroleum, L.L.C., Defendant/Counterclaimant/Third Party Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Karl Benzer, an Individual; The Benzer Trust Dated July 7, 2015 (Unit 41); The Asklund Family Trust U/T/D May 24, 2018 (unit 43); Laketime Properties, LLC (unit 54); Richard Blanchard and Barbara Blanchard, Husband and Wife (unit 58), Third-Party Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of Delaware County, Oklahoma. Honorable Jennifer McAffrey, Trial Judge. Defendant/Counter Claimant/Third Party Plaintiff/Appellant, Lu-Ray Petroleum, L.L.C., owns a condominium unit in Newport Village, a unit ownership estate, in Delaware County, Oklahoma. Appellant buried a 500-gallon propane tank in the front yard adjacent to its unit after being denied permission to do so by Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant/Appellee, Newport Village Homeowners Association (Association) and without approval of 100% of the unit owners. Association sued Appellant for violating the Amended Declaration of Unit Ownership Estates Newport Village Monkey Island on Grand Lake of the Cherokees Delaware County, Oklahoma (Declaration). Appellant countered it appropriately installed the propane tank in an exclusive easement in the yard adjacent to its unit. The trial court granted summary judgment to Association holding Appellant does not have an easement for installation of the propane tank and Association was entitled to permanent injunctive relief to have the tank removed. Appellant filed a motion for new trial which was denied, and Association was awarded attorney fees and costs. Appellant now appeals claiming Association’s claims are not attorney fee bearing; the court erred in granting injunctive relief because it failed to consider the harm to Appellant from removing the propane tank; and the court erred when it failed to consider the ambiguities in the Declaration in Appellant’s favor. After reviewing the record, this Court AFFIRMS the trial court’s judgment, its order denying the motion for new trial and its order awarding attorney fees and costs. Opinion by BELL, C.J.; DOWNING, P.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. December 12, 2025
Division IV
123,305 – LiUNA, Local 107, a labor organization; Stolhand Wells Plumbing, Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc., an Oklahoma corporation; Levi Ritter; Tracy Parker; Christopher Parker; and Mairje Phillips, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. State of Oklahoma ex rel. Construction Industries Board, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. C. Brent Dishman, Trial Judge. Plaintiffs, who initiated this action by filing a Petition for Declaratory Judgment, appeal from the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs do not, as Defendant asserts in its motion to dismiss, plead only the possibility of future injury and seek a judicial opinion merely as to potential future legal problems that may arise. Rather, their allegations present an actual, as distinguished from a possible, potential or contingent dispute between parties with opposing interests. Moreover, although Defendant takes the position that Plaintiffs have not suffered an injury which is actual, concrete and not conjectural in nature, our review of the allegations leads to the opposite conclusion – particularly as this Court must take as true all of the challenged pleading’s allegations together with all reasonable inferences. Therefore, we reverse the district court’s order granting the motion to dismiss, and we remand for further proceedings. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by BARNES, P.J.; HIXON, V.C.J., and HUBER, J., concur. December 10, 2025
122,479 – In re the Marriage of Heather Sloan, Petitioner/Appellant, vs. Isaac Sloan, Respondent/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Barry Hafar, Trial Judge. Heather Sloan (“Wife”) appeals the trial court’s valuation of a property in Asher, Oklahoma (“Asher property”) in the parties’ divorce decree and its denial of her Motion to Reconsider on the grounds of newly discovered evidence or alleged fraud on the court by Isaac Sloan (“Husband”). This issue arose from a divorce action in which the value of the Asher property was disputed by Husband and Wife during an equitable distribution by the trial court. After the trial court announced the valuation but before judgment was entered, Wife put forth a Motion to Reconsider asserting newly discovered evidence that impacted the valuation of the property and that statements by Husband constituted fraud on the court. The motion was denied by the trial court. Based on our review of the briefs and appellate record, we affirm the trial court’s valuation in the divorce decree and denial of Wife’s Motion to Reconsider. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, V.C.J.; BARNES, P.J., and HUBER, J., concur. December 11, 2025