Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | Dec. 27, 2023
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
Division II
120,581 – Jerry Hodges, Plaintiff/Appellee, vs. Phillis Lawson, Defendant/ Appellant, and C.J. Lawson and Charles Smith, Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of Haskell County, Hon. Brian Henderson, Trial Judge. Phillis Lawson appeals the trial court’s order vacating deeds signed by Jerry Hodges in connection with two surety bail bonds issued by Charles Smith Bail Bonds, Inc. After review, we must reverse the trial court’s decision for improper venue and remand the case to the trial court for transfer to Pittsburg County. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; BARNES, V.C.J., and HIXON, J., concur. December 20, 2023
121,357 – In the Matter of T.J.H.W., Alleged Deprived Child, Joshua Burch, Appellant, vs. The State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Custer County, Hon. Donna L. Dirickson, Trial Judge. Joshua Burch (Father) appeals the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights to minor child, TJHW. He argues State failed to present the requisite clear and convincing evidence to support the grounds for termination, that the trial court erred by admitting certain reports into evidence allegedly containing hearsay statements, and that his due process rights were violated. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the order. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by HIXON, J.; BARNES, V.C.J., and WISEMAN, P.J., concur. December 20, 2023
120,971 – William and Sandra Geiser, Husband and Wife; Kenneth N. Phillips, Trustee of The Kenneth N. Phillips Trust; and Carrie J. Good, individually and on behalf of property owners of Eastridge Estates in Lincoln County, OK, Plaintiffs/ Appellants, vs. Calvin Wesley Arwood and Debra Irene Arwood, Husband and Wife, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Lincoln County, Hon. Cynthia Ferrell Ashwood, Trial Judge. William and Sandra Geiser; Kenneth N. Phillips, Trustee of The Kenneth H. Phillips Trust; and Carrie J. Good, individually and on behalf of property owners of Eastridge Estates in Lincoln County, OK (Appellants) appeal the trial court’s order denying their motion for an attorney’s fee and costs, as well as an order denying their motion to reconsider. The issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred as a matter of law in denying Appellants’ motion for fees under 60 O.S.2022, § 856. Based on our review of the facts and law, we conclude it was error for the trial court to deny Appellants’ motion for fees and subsequent motion to reconsider. The orders under review are reversed, and the matter remanded to the trial court to determine the reasonable attorney’s fee Appellants are entitled to under § 856. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by HIXON, J.; BARNES, V.C.J., and WISEMAN, P.J., concur. December 20, 2023
120,600 – Oklahoma City Police Association, Inc., Plaintiff/Appellant, v. The City of Oklahoma City ex rel. Oklahoma City Board of Adjustment and Oklahoma City Downtown Design Review Committee, Defendants/Appellees, and 529 West Main, LLC, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company; Dalakri Parking II LLC, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company; Dalakri Investments L.L.C., an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company; D. Frank Plater, Jr., an Individual; and John Michael Williams, an Individual, Intervenors/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Anthony L. Bonner, Trial Judge. This case arises from the denial of Plaintiff’s application to build a parking garage in downtown Oklahoma City. Plaintiff seeks review of the district court’s judgment affirming the decision of the Oklahoma City Board of Adjustment denying Plaintiff’s application. Based on our review, we affirm the district court’s judgment. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by BARNES, V.C.J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and HIXON, J., concur. December 21, 2023
Division III
120,282 – Kevin Jackson, Plaintiff/Appellee/Counter-Appellant, v. Quiktrip Corporation, Defendant/Appellant/Counter-Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Douglas E. Drummond, Trial Judge. Defendant/Appellant/Counter‑Appellee, QuikTrip Corporation, appeals from the trial court’s judgment, entered upon a jury verdict, finding QuikTrip seventy‑eight percent (78%) negligent in a suit filed by Plaintiff/Appellee/Counter‑Appellant, Kevin Jackson, against QuikTrip and the woman who drove her vehicle over a curb and pinned Plaintiff against a QuikTrip store. Plaintiff settled with the negligent driver before trial. Plaintiff was awarded over fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000.00) in damages and interest against QuikTrip, which maintains the case against it should have been dismissed. Plaintiff counter‑appeals, claiming the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on punitive damages. On June 27, 2016, Plaintiff exited the front door of a Sand Springs QuikTrip store (Store #12) and walked on the sidewalk around a corner to the side of the building. Another QuikTrip customer, Defendant Shirley Crain, was parking her vehicle in the direction of Plaintiff. Rather than pressing her vehicle’s brake pedal, Crain accidentally depressed the accelerator, causing the car to jump over QuikTrip’s six inch (6″) curb and onto the sidewalk. Her vehicle struck Plaintiff and pinned his right leg against the store’s exterior wall. Plaintiff’s lower right leg ultimately required amputation. Plaintiff sued Crain for negligence, but settled and dismissed his claim against her prior to trial. Plaintiff also sued QuikTrip for negligence, claiming the corporation breached its duty to exercise ordinary care to keep Store #12 safe “by creating and allowing to exist unsafe conditions, including the failure to install any bollards or other barriers to prevent a foreseeable storefront crash.” Plaintiff included the assertion that he was unaware of such hidden and dangerous conditions, and that QuikTrip had a duty ‑ but failed ‑ to warn him about the same. Plaintiff’s petition also included a claim for punitive damages. It is undisputed Store #12 conformed to all applicable building codes both in 1992 when it was designed and constructed, and in 2016 at the time of the accident. On this basis, QuikTrip made dispositive motions before, during and after trial that Plaintiff’s claim was barred by the ten (10) year statute of repose set forth in 12 O.S. 2011 §109. That statute governs claims for design or construction deficiencies in real property improvements. Plaintiff insisted at trial ‑ and now on appeal ‑ that his claim against QuikTrip is not based on any design or construction defect, but rather one for a hidden danger and failure to properly maintain the premises. The trial court rejected QuikTrip’s dispositive motions based upon the statute of repose and submitted Plaintiff’s claims to the jury. The trial court rejected Plaintiff’s request to instruct the jury on punitive damages. The jury found both QuikTrip and Crain responsible for Plaintiff’s injury and awarded him $19,000,000.00. The jury assigned twenty‑two percent (22%) fault for the accident to Crain and seventy‑eight percent (78%) to QuikTrip. The trial court granted judgment accordingly. Both parties appeal. While Plaintiff correctly asserts QuikTrip owed him an ongoing duty to provide safe access to Store #12, no matter how he characterizes his claim, it ultimately rests on the theory that the store, completed in 1992, was designed or constructed negligently for want of “bollards or other barriers to prevent a foreseeable storefront crash.” Because this suit was brought more than ten (10) years after Store #12 was substantially completed, Plaintiff’s claim is barred by §109. REVERSED AND DISMISSED. Opinion by BELL, J.; MITCHELL, C.J., and PRINCE, P.J., concur. December 21, 2023
120,837 – William R. Wines, individually; William R. Wines and Karen R. Wines, Co-Trustees of the Gary Bing Wines Trust; William R. Wines and Gary Bing Wines, Co-Trustees of the Bonnie Kaye Wines Gonzales Trust; and Gary Bing Wines, individually, Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. Structural Solutions USA, Inc., an Oklahoma Corporation; and Deer Glen Properties Land Trust, Defendants/Appellants. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Daman H. Cantrell, Trial Judge. Defendants/Appellants, owners of property that is the subject of a mortgage foreclosure by Plaintiffs/Appellees, appeal from the trial court’s denial of their motion to vacate an order allowing Plaintiffs to sell the property without appraisement. The trial court’s original foreclosure judgment specified the property was to be sold “after due and legal appraisement.” However, when there were no bidders on the appraised property the two times it went to sheriff’s sale, the trial court granted Plaintiffs’ motion ‑ filed more than ten (10) months after the foreclosure judgment ‑ to sell the property without appraisement. Defendants’ motion to vacate the order was overruled by the trial court and they now appeal. We hold the trial court was without authority to modify the foreclosure judgment to allow Plaintiffs to sell the property without appraisement. Thus, we find the trial court abused its discretion in overruling Defendants’ motion to vacate. The trial court’s judgment is REVERSED AND REMANDED. Opinion by BELL, J.; MITCHELL, C.J., and PRINCE, P.J., concur. December 21, 2023
121,613 – Frank Thomas, Petitioner/Appellant, v. David Cole, of GEO Corrections Lawton Correctional Facility (L.C.F.), Respondent/Appellee, and Property Officer Helen Calhoun, et. al., in their official & individual Capacities, Respondents. Appeal from the District Court of Comanche County, Oklahoma. Honorable Grant Sheperd, Trial Judge. Petitioner/Appellant, Frank Thomas, appeals an Order granting a Motion to Dismiss/Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of Respondents. Mr. Thomas is an inmate at the Lawton Correctional and Rehabilitation Facility (“LCRF”). He submitted eight Requests to Staff and followed each request with a formal Grievance. Before an inmate is permitted to initiate a district court action, the inmate is required to exhaust all available administrative remedies. Respondents claimed that Mr. Thomas failed to exhaust his remedies and sought dismissal of his claims based on that alleged failure. The trial court agreed with Respondents and granted the Motion to Dismiss/Motion for Summary Judgment. We have reviewed the record and find that the Court Order granting the Motion to Dismiss constitutes error. Consequently, the Court Order issued by the trial court is REVERSED. The matter is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. Opinion by PRINCE, P.J.; MITCHELL, C.J., and BELL, J., concur. December 21, 2023
121,643 – U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., as Trustee of The LSF9 Master Participation Trust, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Rachel M. Brown, Special Administratrix of the Estate of Monzella Brown, deceased, Defendant/Appellant, and Spouse of Monzella Brown if married, Occupants of the Premises, Michael Brown, Spouse of Michael Brown if married, Edwin A. Brown, Spouse of Edwin A. Brown if married, Samuel Brown, III, Spouse of Samuel Brown, III, if married, Orlando W. Brown, Spouse of Orlando W. Brown if married, Spouse of Rachael M. Brown if married, Colleenia K. Brown, Spouse of Colleenia K. Brown if married, Velocity Investments, LLD, Freedom Financial Services of Arkansas, Inc., and Robert T. Keel, Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of Garvin County, Oklahoma. Honorable Leah Edwards, Trial Judge. Defendant/Appellant, Rachel M. Brown, Special Administratrix of the Estate of Monzella Brown, deceased, (“Brown”), appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in a mortgage foreclosure case in favor of Plaintiff/Appellee, U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., as a Trustee for the LSF9 Master Participation Trust (“Trust”). Brown additionally appeals the trial court’s dismissal of her counterclaim for abuse of process. Upon a holistic review of the record and applicable law, we AFFIRM the decision of the trial court in whole. Opinion by PRINCE, P.J.; MITCHELL, C.J., and BELL, J., concur. December 21, 2023
121,008 – State of Oklahoma, et rel. Oklahoma State Board of Medical Licensure and Supervision. Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Edward Gerard Melton, M.D., License No. 24098, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the Oklahoma State Board of Medical Licensure and Supervision. Appellant, Dr. Edward Melton (Doctor), a licensed psychiatrist, appeals from an order of the Oklahoma State Board of Medical Licensure and Supervision (Medical Board) finding him guilty of unprofessional conduct. Specifically, the Medical Board found Doctor’s flirtatious and sexual conduct with two patients, one of which he prescribed Schedules II and IV medications more than two dozen times, was unprofessional conduct. The Medical Board also found Doctor prescribed controlled substances without conducting a sufficient examination of the patient and failed to maintain adequate records to support his treatment. The Medical Board indefinitely suspended his license with the ability to reapply after six (6) months from the date of the challenged Order and after satisfactory completion of educational training or a treatment program. Appellant raises essentially three propositions of error on appeal. First, he claims the Medical Board’s Order fails to make proper findings of fact. Second, he claims he was denied a fundamentally fair trial by the admission of hearsay, the admission of copies of documents rather than the originals, and the admission of his mental and physical examination without being given a copy to review prior to admission. Finally, Doctor claims the Medical Board violated the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act (OMA). Upon review of the record before us, we AFFIRM. Opinion by DOWNING, J.; GOREE, P.J., and SWINTON, J., concur. December 21, 2023
Division IV