Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | Dec. 26, 2024
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
121,860 – Arthur Duane Phillips, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Brad Lenhart, Justin Little and Richard Evans,
Defendants/Appellants. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Daman H. Cantrell, Trial Judge. Respondents/Appellants Brad Lenhart, Justin Little, and Richard Evans appeal from an order in favor of Plaintiff/Appellee Arthur Duane Phillips in a challenge to a referendum petition.
The trial court determined that the “gist” of the ballot was sufficiently misleading under the applicable legal standards, and therefore, struck the ballot measure. We affirm. Opinion by SWINTON, P.J.; BELL, V.C.J., and PRINCE, J., concur. Dec. 19, 2024
121,886 – Prosser Group Investments II, LLC, and Magness Energy, LLC, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Roan Resources, LLC, and Citizens Energy III, LLC, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Grady County. Honorable Kory S. Kirkland, Judge Plaintiffs/Appellants, Prosser Group Investments II, LLC, and Magness Energy, LLC, appeal from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of
Defendants/Appellees, Roan Resources, LLC, and Citizen Energy III, LLC, in this action by Plaintiffs to quiet title to their claimed interests in oil and gas leases and to recover unpaid production proceeds, and Defendants’ counterclaim for declaratory judgment. In 1971, Plaintiffs’ predecessors in interest invested in a limited partnership created to obtain and develop oil and gas leases. The venture acquired interests in oil and gas leases in five sections of land in Grady County (the Subject Leases), which are all still held by production to the present day. In 1976, the successor general partner terminated the venture. Simultaneously, the general partner executed a joint operating agreement binding the interests of the general and limited partners in the Subject Leases. Since that time, the leasehold interests of Plaintiffs (and their predecessors) in the Subject Lease have been recognized by every well operator except
Defendants. Plaintiffs and their predecessors paid well costs, received revenue and participated in the drilling of more than a dozen wells on the Subject Leases without interruption for 47 years. Defendants then took over operations of the Subject Leases and denied Plaintiffs’ rights therein. The trial court held
Plaintiffs’ claims were time barred and that Defendants were protected as bona fide purchasers. It is undisputed Plaintiffs were the equitable owners of their fractional interests in the Subject Leases dating back to the early 1970’s. All operators under the Subject Leases, prior to Defendants, consistently acted on behalf of Plaintiffs and their predecessors as their nominees/agents. Plaintiffs were not simply liabilities of the successive operators. Plaintiffs were the equitable owners of their respective fractional interests in the Subject Leases, purchased by their predecessors some fifty (50) years ago and held by production to this day. Any interests the operators had in the leases were subject to Plaintiffs’ interests. We also find the trial court’s statute of limitations ruling was incorrect. Plaintiffs and their predecessors, through their nominees/agents, took steps toward reducing the minerals in the Subject Leases to possession through drilling operations. Thus, no statute of limitations applies to Plaintiffs’ quiet title action. Finally, we hold the trial court erred in declaring that consideration was missing from any agreement Plaintiffs had with their nominees/agents. Plaintiffs’ predecessors invested substantial
funds in the original investment, the Drilling Fund, and the predecessors and then Plaintiffs paid their proportionate share of well costs through the years. Such cash outlays constitute sufficient consideration to support the finding of a binding contract. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Opinion by BELL, V.C.J.; SWINTON, P.J., and PRINCE, J., concur. Dec. 19, 2024
121,889 – Gregory Zeiders, D.O., and Zeiders Orthopedics, PLLC, Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants/Appellants, v. Memorial Hospital of Texas County, Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff/Appellee, and Board of County Commissioners of Texas County, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Texas County, Oklahoma. Honorable Jon K. Parsley, Trial Judge. Gregory Zeiders, D.O., both individually and through his business, Zeiders Orthopedics, PLLC, (Plaintiffs/Appellants) (collectively “Dr. Zeiders”) have appealed the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice of the claims in the Petition as a sanction for discovery abuses, stemming from a gradual progression of efforts by the trial court to secure proper responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents. This case involves claims of breach of contract and tortious interference against the Memorial Hospital of Texas County (Defendant/Appellee) (“the Hospital”). The dismissal of Dr. Zeiders’ claims was preceded by two court Orders compelling Dr. Zeiders’ production of the requested documents concerning the production of documents related to Dr. Zeiders’ patient records and related billing history. Dr. Zeiders argued on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion by employing the severe sanction of dismissal with prejudice. We find the record shows no abuse of discretion by the trial court and, thus, we AFFIRM the trial court’s Order of December 12, 2023. Opinion by PRINCE, J.; BELL, V.C.J., and SWINTON, J., concur. Dec. 19, 2024
122,172 – Cynthia Ruiz, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Jones Brown, PLLC, a domestic professional limited liability company, Logan Jones, Esq., and Eric Brown, Esq. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Caroline Wall, Trial Judge. Plaintiff/Appellant Cynthia Ruiz appeals an order granting motions to dismiss filed by Defendants/Appellees Logan Jones, Esquire, Eric Brown, Esquire, (Lawyers), and Jones Brown, PLLC (Law Firm) (collectively, Defendants). The trial court dismissed Ruiz’s original petition with leave to amend. After Ruiz filed an amended petition, Defendants again sought dismissal for failure to state a claim, which the trial court granted. It is settled that motions to dismiss are disfavored and a plaintiff need only give fair notice of her claims and the grounds supporting it. On de novo review, we find Ruiz has made sufficient allegations to state claims for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and deceit. We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings on those claims against Law Firm and Lawyers. We affirm the dismissal of Ruiz’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Ruiz also made allegations against William Lin, aka Rui Lin, but she did not name him as a Defendant in the style of her amended petition. We therefore also affirm the trial court’s order dismissing Ruiz’s claims against non-party Lin. Opinion by SWINTON, P.J.; BELL, V.C.J., and PRINCE, J., concur. Dec. 19, 2024
Division II
121,945 – In the Matter of A.J. & A.J., alleged deprived children, Deneisha Johnson, Appellant, vs. The State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Honorable Nichole M. Gillett, Trial Judge. Deneisha Johnson appeals a trial court order terminating her parental rights to her two children. Johnson’s sole contention on appeal is that the trial court’s refusal to accept her consent to termination of her parental rights denied her due process and constituted fundamental error. Johnson has shown no error or due process violation in the trial court’s denial of her consent to termination of her parental rights. Because Johnson addressed no other error in her brief in chief, we affirm the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to her minor children. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; BARNES, C.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. Dec. 20, 2024
Division III
122,001 – In the Matter of the Estate of Lela Mae Dixon, Deceased, Anna Anderson, Appellant, v. Colby Dixon, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Kurt G. Glassco, Trial Judge. This interlocutory appeal springs from a proceeding to probate the Last Will and Testament of Lela Mae Dixon (Dixon). Appellant Anna Anderson (Daughter) seeks review of the trial court’s order admitting the Will to probate, appointing her as personal representative, and determining heirs, devisees, and legatees. She also appeals from the trial court’s order denying her motion for new trial. Daughter alleges the court erred by determining Appellee Colby Dixon (Grandson) was a devisee and legatee. The residuary clause of the Will provides that any remaining property in Dixon’s estate should be distributed to her children who survived her. The residuary clause also provides that the share of any child who did not survive Dixon should be distributed to that child’s lineal descendants on a per stirpes basis. Dixon’s two sons pre-deceased her, and Grandson is the son of one of those sons. The court’s finding is not clearly against the weight of the evidence or contrary to law. Accordingly, we AFFIRM. Opinion by MITCHELL, P.J.; GOREE, J., and DOWNING, J., concur. Dec. 20, 2024
122,374 – In the Matter of: J.T., Alleged Deprived Child, Lindsey Tailor, Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Pontotoc County, Oklahoma. Honorable Lori L. Jackson,
Trial Judge. Appellant, Lindsey Tailor (Mother) appeals the trial court’s order filed on July 2, 2024, terminating her parental rights to J.T. We have reviewed the record and applicable law and find
reversal is required. Opinion by DOWNING, J.; MITCHELL, P.J., and GOREE, J., concur. Dec. 20, 2024
Division IV
121,475 – Reginald Dantzler, Plaintiff/Appellee, vs. Taletha Henderson, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Catherine M. Burton, Trial Judge. Taletha Henderson, pro se, appeals the district court’s June 22, 2023, Journal Entry of Judgment entered in this small claims action in favor of Reginald Dantzler. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the district court’s June 22, 2023, Journal Entry of Judgment. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HUBER, P.J.; HIXON, J., and BLACKWELL, J., concur. Dec. 19, 2024
122,193 – Dorita Heard, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Oklahoma Department of Veterans Affairs, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Sheila Stinson, District Judge. Dorita Herd appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment against the claims of wrongful discharge, workplace bullying and hostile work environment, and failure to maintain a safe workplace that she brought against the Oklahoma Department of Veterans’ Affairs (ODVA). On review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV by BLACKWELL, J.; HUBER, P.J., concurs, and HIXON, J., concurs specially. Dec. 23, 2024