Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | Feb. 1, 2023
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
119,672 – Karri Jean McBride, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Eddie Joe Walton, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Logan County, Oklahoma. Honorable Louis A. Duel, Trial Judge. Appellant, Eddie Walton, seeks review of the Logan County District Court’s order of June 8, 2021 denying Walton’s motion to vacate an earlier order which quieted title to a residence in Guthrie, Oklahoma in Karri McBride, Walton’s former bail bondsman. For the reasons provided, we reverse the order of the district court and remand for further proceedings. Opinion by GOREE, P.J.; SWINTON, J., and DOWNING, J., concur. Jan. 26, 2023
120,918 – Dustin Brown, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Welsh & McGough, PLLC, a Professional Limited Liability Company, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Daman H. Cantrell, Trial Judge. Dustin Brown (Plaintiff/Appellant) sued Catherine Welsh and Welsh & McGough PLLC (Defendants/Appellees) for torts he claims she committed while acting as guardian ad litem in the pending dissolution of marriage proceeding between Dustin Brown and Amy Brown. Appellees filed a motion to dismiss and the court granted it without prejudice. Appellant proposes the court relied on 12 O.S. §2012(B)(8)(another action pending between the same parties for the same claim). We hold §2012(B)(8) does not apply because a guardian ad litem is not a party in a dissolution of marriage proceeding. Rowe v. Rowe, 2009 OK 66, ¶10, 218 P.3d 887, 891. The order is REVERSED. Opinion by GOREE, P.J; SWINTON, J., and DOWNING, J., concur. Jan. 26, 2023
Division II
120,666 – A. Shaw, an individual, L. Shaw and M. Shaw, as Guardians, Plaintiffs/Appellants, vs. City of Norman, a municipal corporation, Defendant/ Appellee. A. Shaw, an individual, L. Shaw and M. Shaw, as Guardians (collectively, Appellants), appeal an order granting City of Norman’s (City) motion to dismiss with prejudice. We find the trial court correctly granted City’s motion to dismiss with prejudice as Appellants’ petition was untimely. The order granting City’s motion to dismiss with prejudice is affirmed. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by HIXON, J.; BARNES, V.C.J., and WISEMAN, P.J., concur. Jan. 30, 2023
120,228 – LaRhonda Michelle Johnson, Petitioner/Appellant, vs. Nikita Nichole Washington, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. April D. Collins, Trial Judge. LaRhonda Michelle Johnson appeals an order denying her petition for protective order. Appellant failed to provide this Court with an appellate record necessary to secure corrective relief from the trial court’s order. The trial court’s order denying Appellant’s petition for protective order is therefore affirmed. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by HIXON, J.; BARNES, V.C.J., and WISEMAN, P.J., concur. Jan. 26, 2023
120,743 – Terrie D. Nelson, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Spencer Selby, Defendant/ Appellee. Appeal from an order of the District Court of Logan County, Hon. Louis A. Duel, Trial Judge. Plaintiff Terrie D. Nelson appeals the decision of the trial court granting Defendant Spencer Selby’s (Owner) motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff was riding her motorcycle past Owner’s home in Logan County when, according to Plaintiff, his dog lunged at her and collided with her left leg or foot, causing injury to her left foot and leg. Owner’s home is located in a rural, unincorporated area of Logan County where leash laws do not apply. Plaintiff argues the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because “the issue of whether [Owner] knew or should have known that his dogs roaming freely and crossing a well-traveled public roadway might cause a motor vehicle collision is a question of fact for a jury to decide.” Plaintiff also maintains the trial court erred in striking Plaintiff’s witnesses because they were not served with deposition subpoenas before the court struck them. Even if the trial court had not stricken the testimony of these apparently uncooperative witnesses, summary judgment would still be proper because the affidavits Plaintiff produced fail to establish Owner was informed of these prior occasions or had any actual or constructive notice of any propensity by his dogs to cause danger or injury to others. There is no evidence Owner knew, was made aware of, or should have known of any danger posed by his dog to passing motorists. The trial court properly granted summary judgment in Owner’s favor. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; BARNES, V.C.J., and HIXON, J., concur. Jan. 26, 2023
120,822 – Brenda Duverney-Chappell, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Dr. Gregory Halko and Orthopedic Associates, Inc., Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Aletia Haynes Timmons, Trial Judge. Plaintiff appeals from the district court’s order denying her “Motion for an Answer to a Question of Law” and dismissing her petition with prejudice. We recast Plaintiff’s Motion for an Answer to a Question of Law as a motion requesting that the district court reconsider, or vacate, its previous denial of Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment or declaratory relief. Just as a denial of a motion for summary judgment (or for declaratory relief) is not appealable, a denial of a motion to reconsider or vacate an order denying a motion for summary judgment is also not appealable. Consequently, the district court’s denial of the Motion for an Answer to a Question of Law does not constitute an appealable event. We vacate that portion of the district court’s order dismissing the petition with prejudice and, because a denial of a summary judgment motion (or a motion for declaratory relief) is not appealable, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. VACATED IN PART AND APPEAL DISMISSED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by BARNES, V.C.J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and HIXON, J., concur. Jan. 26, 2023
Division III
Division IV