Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | Feb. 7, 2024
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
117,386 – Danny R. Humphrey and, Rebecca Humphrey, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Taco Bueno Restaurants, L.P., a foreign limited partnership, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Caroline Wall, Judge. Plaintiffs/Appellants, Danny R. Humphrey and Rebecca Humphrey, appeal from the trial court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendant/Appellee, Taco Bueno Restaurants, L.P., in Plaintiffs’ action for negligence and premises liability. On August 6, 2016, Danny Humphrey was a lunch customer at Defendant’s Broken Arrow restaurant. Mr. Humphrey placed his order at the front counter, walked toward the seating area, then remained standing while he awaited his order. When his order was ready, Humphrey walked to the front counter and retrieved his food. Humphrey then slipped and fell as he was returning to the seating area. It was subsequently determined that a leak in the ceiling/roof caused a small amount of water to drip onto the floor. Humphrey and his wife thereafter filed the instant suit based upon premises liability. Defendant moved for and was granted summary judgment. The undisputed evidence shows none of Defendant’s employees were aware of the leak or presence of water on the floor prior to Humphrey’s fall, and no customer reported seeing any water in that area. Defendant had neither actual nor imputed knowledge of the hazard. Because Defendant had no duty to warn Humphrey of the hazardous condition, the trial court correctly granted summary judgment. With respect to Plaintiffs’ spoliation argument, we note there is no proof Defendant destroyed or materially altered any evidence in this case; Plaintiff presented no proof that any witness information was available to Defendant after the incident and photographs taken after Mr. Humphrey fell – had any been taken – would not have had any bearing on the issue of notice. Finally, Plaintiffs’ argument ignores that they were provided with surveillance video of the activity at the restaurant before, during and after the accident. AFFIRMED. Opinion by BELL, V.C.J.; SWINTON, P.J., concurs and PRINCE, J., concur in result. January 31, 2024
121,154 – Harold Price and Patricia A. Price, Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants/Appellants, v. LaFaver Fiberglass Corporation and Bobby Joe LaFaver, Individually, Defendants/Counter-Claimants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Wagoner County, Oklahoma. Honorable Douglas Kikley, Trial Judge. Plaintiffs/Appellants Harold Price and Patricia A. Price filed suit alleging Defendants/Appellees LaFaver Fiberglass Corp. and Bobby Joe LaFaver’s (collectively, LaFaver) fiberglass operation constituted a nuisance. Prices also alleged claims for negligence, negligence per se, and breach of an earlier mediation agreement between the parties. LaFaver counterclaimed for intentional interference with business relations, interference with economic advantage, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, assault and battery, and breach of the mediation agreement. In a companion case, this court previously affirmed summary judgment in favor of LaFaver. See Case No. 120,315 (mandated January 1, 2024). Opinion by SWINTON, P.J.; BELL, V.C.J., and PRINCE, J., concur. February 1, 2024
121,175 – In the Matter of A.C., Deprived Child. State of Oklahoma, Petitioner/Appellee, vs. David Goingkeen, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Caddo County, Oklahoma. Honorable David Stephens, Trial Judge. Respondent/Appellant David Goingkeen appeals from a judgment terminating his parental rights to A.C. (Child), following a jury trial. The Indian Child Welfare Act applies in this case. The jury found termination was in Child’s best interests due to Goingkeen’s failure to correct the conditions leading to the deprived adjudication and that placing Child in Goingkeen’s custody was likely to result in serious harm to Child. On appeal, Goingkeen argues Petitioner/Appellee State of Oklahoma failed to prove that it had made active efforts, that continued custody would result in serious harm to Child, or that termination was in Child’s best interests. We affirm. Opinion by SWINTON, P.J.; BELL, V.C.J., and PRINCE, J., concur. February 1, 2024
121,257 – Mike Gunia and Mike Gunia, as next friend and parent of J.D. Gunia, a ,minor child, Plaintiffs/Appellees, vs. Regina Underwood, LPC, Individually, and Copper Penny Psychological Center, PLLC, An Oklahoma Professional Limited Liability Corporation, Defendants/Appellants. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Caroline Wall, Trial Judge. Gunia, a minor child (Father), brought this action for negligence, fraud/deceit, and tortious interference with parent/child relationship against Defendant/Appellant, Regina Underwood, LPC, and against, Defendant/Appellant, Copper Penny Psychological Center PLLC (Company), under respondeat superior,for Company’s failure to properly train and supervise Underwood (Defendants are collectively referred to as Counselor). The underlying lawsuit that gave rise to Father’s claims against Counselor is a divorce/custody dispute between Father and J.R. Gunia (Mother) wherein Counselor served as a therapist and court-appointed therapeutic supervisor of visitation (TSV). In the instant action, Counselor moved to dismiss pursuant to the Oklahoma Citizens Participation Act, 12 O.S. 2021 §1430, et. seq. (Act). The trial court denied the motion and Counselor filed this interlocutory appeal pursuant to 12 O.S. 2021 §1437. After de novo review of the record, we REVERSE the trial court’s order and REMAND this matter to the trial court with instructions to dismiss this action and, upon proper application, to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the reasonable amount of trial and appeal-related attorney fees, costs and expenses to be awarded Counselor pursuant to 12 O.S. 2021 §1438(A). Opinion by BELL, V.C.J.; SWINTON, P.J., concurs and PRINCE, J., dissents. February 1, 2024
Division II
120,937 – In re the Marriage of: Lindsey L. Boyd, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Charles W. Boyd, Respondent/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Grady County, Hon. Z. Joseph Young, Trial Judge. Lindsey L. Boyd appeals from the district court’s order awarding attorney fees. We conclude the court properly declined to award fees pursuant to 43 O.S. 2021 § 107.4(B) and § 107.3(D), and we affirm the court’s implicit denial of such fees. However, we reverse the court’s implicit denial of costs and fees under 43 O.S. 2021 § 111.1(C)(3), and we remand this case with directions to award Ms. Boyd, pursuant to § 111.1(C)(3), “court costs and attorney fees expended in enforcing the order and any other reasonable costs and expenses incurred in connection with the denied child support[.]” In addition, the court’s finding that Ms. Boyd “should be awarded a judgment against [Mr. Boyd] in the sum of $10,000.00 specifically pertaining to issues involving Discovery in this case” is flawed because the court fails to make necessary findings and applies an erroneous standard. We, therefore, reverse the court’s award and remand with directions that separate findings responsive to 12 O.S. 2021 § 3226(G),
§ 3237(A)(4), § 3237(B)(2), and 43 O.S. § 110(D) be made by the court. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by BARNES, C.J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. January 31, 2024
Division III
Division IV
120,069 – In re the Marriage of: Ryan Knight, Petitioner/Appellee, vs. Lindsey Knight, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal of an Order of the District Court of Garfield County, Hon. Paul Woodward, District Judge. Lindsey Knight appeals various provisions of a divorce decree ordered by the district court in the dissolution of her marriage to Ryan Knight. On review, we affirm the court’s decisions, with the exception of remanding with instructions to enter a support alimony arrearage of $1,450. We also remand for the entry of an order requiring that Ryan disclose his work schedule as soon as it is practically known, in order that the dates he will exercise his visitation may be determined in advance. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV by BLACKWELL, J.; HUBER, PJ., and HIXON, J., concur. January 31, 2024
121,451 – In re the Adoption of E.C., a minor child, William Cox, Appellant, vs. David Schlemmer and Rebecca Schlemmer, Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. James M. Siderias, Trial Judge. William Cox (Father) appeals the trial court’s finding that his consent was not required for the adoption of his natural child, E.C. He also alleges his due process rights were violated at a hearing on the child’s best interests. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s orders. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, J.; HUBER, P.J., and BLACKWELL, J., concur. January 31, 2024