Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | Feb. 11, 2026
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
Division II
123,572 – In the Matter of the Estate of Jimmie Wayne Hawkins, Deceased: Joyce Johns and Terri Bradley, Counter-Petitioners/Appellants, v. Ashleigh Hawkins and Spencer Hawkins, Petitioners/Appellees. Appeal From the District Court of Osage County, Oklahoma. Honorable Stuart Tate, Trial Judge. In this intestate probate proceeding, Counter-Petitioners/Appellants, Joyce A. Johns and Terri Bradley (Sisters), the sisters of Jimmie Wayne Hawkins, deceased (Decedent), appeal from the trial court’s order granting summary judgment to Petitioners/Appellees, Ashleigh Hawkins and Spencer Hawkins, the decedent’s purported children and lineal heirs (Children). The trial court entered a judicial determination of heirship determining Children to be Decedent’s children and sole heirs and issued Children joint letters of administration. Sisters challenged Children’s legitimacy and moved to strike the letters and set aside the judicial determination of heirship. Children moved for summary judgment in their favor claiming their status as Decedent’s children and legal heirs should be judicially determined under 84 O.S. 2021 §215 because Decedent acknowledged his paternity of Children in 1998 and Decedent caused Children’s birth certificates to be amended to reflect Decedent as Children’s father. The trial court held Children are Decedent’s children pursuant to §215 and are the sole heirs at law pursuant to 84 O.S. 2021 §213(B). After de novo review, this Court affirms the trial court’s order under Supreme Court Rule 1.202(b) and (d). Opinion by BELL, J.; GOREE, J., and DOWNING, J.,(sitting by designation) concur. February 4, 2026
Division III
123,300 – In the Matter of T.J.M., a/k/a T.J.R., a Deprived Child, Talon Rentie, Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Mary Ann Godsby, Trial Judge. Appellant, Talon Rentie (“Rentie”) appeals an Order Terminating Parental Rights. The child at the center of this case, T.J.M., a/k/a T.J.R., was taken into emergency custody by the Department of Human Services (“DHS”) approximately one week after the child’s birth on March 15, 2024. Because Appellee, the State of Oklahoma, sought immediate termination of Rentie’s parental rights, Rentie was not provided with an Individualized Service Plan (“ISP”). A jury returned a 5-1 verdict to terminate Rentie’s parental rights. Rentie claims in her Br.-in-chief that the trial court erred when it permitted the trial to proceed in her absence at two points in the trial and that the evidence was insufficient to support, by clear and convincing evidence, the termination of her parental rights. We find that Rentie’s due process rights were not violated and that the Order Terminating Parental Rights should be AFFIRMED. Opinion by PRINCE, V.C.J.; DOWNING, P.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. February 05, 2026
123,283 – In the matter of M.C., alleged deprived child, Anthony Cheatham, Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Pottawatomie County, Oklahoma. Honorable Tracy McDaniel, Trial Judge. Appellant, Anthony Cheatham, is the father of M.C., a minor child, who was taken into custody by the Department of Human Services (“DHS”) approximately two months after the child was born. DHS filed a Petition alleging that M.C. was deprived because Mr. Cheatham was not providing proper parental care and his home was unsafe due to anger/aggression issues. The trial court adjudicated M.C. deprived after a bench trial and Mr. Cheatham has appealed that ruling. Mr. Cheatham asserts on appeal that the State failed to carry its burden of proof to demonstrate that M.C. was deprived or that the requirements under the Indian Child Welfare Act (“ICWA”) were met. After a review of the record and applicable law, we disagree with Mr. Cheatham’s arguments and AFFIRM the Order adjudicating M.C. deprived. Opinion by PRINCE, V.C.J.; DOWNING, P.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. February 09, 2026
123,490 – Leslie Wayne Odom, Charles Edward Odom, Mitchel LaRue Odom, and David Earl Odom, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Patty Jo Roberts, John Mark Roberts, Stephen Wade Fontaine, Laurie Ann Fontaine, and The Estate of Bonnie Mae Odom, a deceased person, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Le Flore County, Oklahoma. Honorable Jon Sullivan, Trial Judge. Leslie Earl Odom (Husband) and Bonnie Mae Odom (Wife) funded their revocable living trust with their home. It was to become irrevocable when either of them died. The trust assets were then to go to Husband’s four children from a prior marriage and to Wife’s daughter from a prior marriage. After Husband died, in 2015, despite the irrevocability of the trust, Wife deeded the property from the trust to herself individually. A year later Wife deeded the property to herself and to her daughter in joint tenancy. In 2022, the property was conveyed to BFPs. Plaintiffs, the four children of Husband, brought this action later in 2022 against Wife’s daughter and Wife’s estate for deed cancelation, embezzlement, fraud and breach of fiduciary duty because the conveyances, beginning in 2015, were made after the trust had become irrevocable. As the fraudulent conveyances had been made six and seven years earlier the trial court held the claims were barred by the statute of limitations. And because the deeds had been filed of record in the county clerk’s office, the plaintiffs had constructive notice of the conveyances and thus could not avail themselves of the discovery rule to toll the statute of limitations pursuant to Calvert v. Swinford, 2016 OK 100, 382 P.3d 1028. Opinion by MITCHELL, J.; DOWNING, P.J., and SWINTON, J. (sitting by designation), concur. February 09, 2026
Division IV
122,317 – David Thomas and Christina Thomas, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. SPAG-NH, LLC, a domestic limited liability company d/b/a Norman Hyundai, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Anthony Bonner, Trial Judge. Plaintiffs appeal from an Order of the district court sustaining the motion of Defendant to compel arbitration. The dispositive issue presented on appeal is whether the district court should have conducted an evidentiary hearing prior to determining whether to compel arbitration. We conclude the district court was duty-bound to grant the requested evidentiary hearing and allow Plaintiffs to present further proof in support of their response to the motion to compel arbitration. Accordingly, we conclude the district court abused its discretion in this regard. The district court’s Order compelling arbitration is reversed, and the case is remanded with instructions. The district court, on remand, must conduct an evidentiary hearing on the existence of a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement and the expense of arbitration. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, by BARNES, J.; BLACKWELL, P.J., and HUBER, J., concur. February 6, 2026
121,658 – William Daniel d/b/a Summit Wealth Solutions, Plaintiff, v. John V. Skurkey, individually, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff/Appellee, v. The Summit Group, Inc., an Oklahoma corporation, and Summit Partners, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company d/b/a Capital Wealth Management, LLC, d/b/a Summit Wealth Management d/b/a Summit Wealth Solutions, LLC, d/b/a Summit Wealth Concepts, Third-Party Defendants, and Paul Quigley, Contempt/Interpleader Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Catherine Burton, Trial Judge. Paul Quigley seeks review of three orders of the district court entered in favor of John V. Skurkey. Mr. Quigley makes several arguments on appeal, including: that the district court erred in refusing to find that funds placed into a certain trust account are exempt assets; that the district court erred in admitting evidence of communications between himself and his client over the assertion of attorney-client privilege; that the district court erred in allowing the testimony of a witness who should have been certified as an expert witness, but was not; that the court erred in determining that restitution is an appropriate remedy for indirect contempt of court and in failing to apply the standard of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt; that the court erred in awarding prevailing party attorney fees in one aspect of the case; that the court erred in its award of certain costs; and that the court erred in the amount of attorney fees awarded. Finding no error, we affirm the three appealed orders. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by BARNES, J.; BLACKWELL, P.J., and HUBER, J., concur. February 10, 2026