Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | Jan. 11, 2023
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
Division II
119,852 – In re the Marriage of: Tracy D. Conlon, Petitioner/Appellee, Oklahoma Department of Human Services, Child Support Services, Intervenor/Appellee v. Russell G. Conlon, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Martha Oakes, Trial Judge. Russell G. Conlon appeals from an order of the district court denying his motion to remove the Oklahoma Department of Human Services (DHS) as a necessary party. Mr. Conlon, who argued below that in his view DHS has become “a corrupt organization . . . through the criminal actions of certain attorneys the State employs,” and that these “criminal actions should void statutory authority as a necessary party of a case,” raises eight propositions in his appellate brief, including propositions invoking the due process and equal protection clause of the state and federal constitutions, and the Origination Clause of the United States Constitution. We find Mr. Conlon’s arguments to be unpersuasive and lacking in merit, and we affirm the order of the district court denying the motion to remove DHS as a necessary party. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by BARNES, V.C.J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and HIXON, J., concur. Jan. 6, 2023
120,312 – Mary Smith, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Eric Klosterman, Individually; Independent School District No. 89 of Oklahoma County; CCMSI, a Claims Administration Company; Genesis Insurance Company and Berkshire Hathaway, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Natalie Mai, Trial Judge. Mary Smith appeals the dismissal of her tort claim against Independent School District No. 89 of Oklahoma County (ISD 89), on the grounds of failure to give the notice required by § 156 of the Governmental Tort Claims Act, 51 O.S. §§ 151-172 (GTCA). She also appeals the court’s summary judgment that employee Eric Klosterman was acting within the scope of his employment and the dismissal of her petition against claims administrator CCMSI and insurers Genesis Insurance and Berkshire Hathaway. On review, we find no error in the district court’s decisions and affirm. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II by BLACKWELL, J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and HIXON, J. (sitting by designation), concur. Jan. 5, 2023
120,504 – RCG-Rockwell, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company, Plaintiff/ Appellant, vs. Lamar Central Outdoor, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from an order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Aletia Haynes Timmons, Trial Judge. RCG-Rockwell, LLC, appeals a trial court order denying its motion for summary judgment and granting the summary judgment motion filed by Lamar Central Outdoor, LLC. The issue before us for review is whether the trial court correctly determined that Lamar is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. After review, we conclude that material issues of fact remain in dispute and Lamar Central Outdoor, LLC, is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; BLACKWELL, J., and FISCHER, C.J. (sitting by designation), concur. Jan. 5, 2023
120,412 – In the Matter of the Estate of Bobby Gene Blevins and Nova Loraine Blevins, Deceased, David Denny and Levi Blevins, Appellants, vs. Darla Card and Dixie Windrum, Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Murray County, Hon. Aaron Duck, Trial Judge. Contestants David Denny and Levi Blevins appeal an order admitting Bobby Gene Blevins’ (Decedent) Last Will and Testament to probate and denying their motion to take as pretermitted heirs. After review, the trial court’s order admitting Decedent’s Will to probate and denying Contestants’ motion to take as pretermitted heirs is affirmed. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by HIXON, J.; BARNES, V.C.J., and WISEMAN, P.J., concur. Jan. 9, 2023
120,004 – Judith Anne Barclay, Petitioner/Appellee, vs. Boyd Lee Dean Barclay, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from an order of the District Court of Logan County, Hon. Susan C. Worthington, Trial Judge. Boyd Lee Dean Barclay appeals the trial court’s order granting Judith Anne Barclay’s application for contempt citation and alternative motion for order enforcing decree. Boyd argues trial court error in deciding he “was required to hold Judith harmless from the Discover Card debt” because the debt was discharged in bankruptcy and further, he was released from this obligation in a 2018 order regarding the debt. Our review tells us that the trial court correctly concluded (1) that Boyd’s bankruptcy as a matter of law did not discharge his obligation under the 2013 decree to hold Judith harmless on the Discover Card debt and (2) that the June 2018 order did not release Boyd from the hold harmless provision. The trial court’s decision is affirmed. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; BLACKWELL, J., and FISCHER, C.J. (sitting by designation), concur. Jan. 10, 2023
Division III
120,732 – The Harry R. Aschan Revocable Trust, dated December 22, 2015, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Patsy J. Harnish, Defendant/Appellant, and Heidi J. Gill, The Unknown Heirs, personal representatives, devisees, Trustees and Successors of John W. Harnish, Deceased and the Unknown Successors of Architectural Interiors of Oklahoma, Inc., Dissolved Oklahoma Corporation, Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa county, Oklahoma. Honorable Daman H. Cantrell, Trial Judge. Plaintiff/Appellee, the Harry R. Aschan Revocable Trust, dated December 22, 2015 (Trust), brought this action against Defendant/Appellant, Patsy J. Harnish, to collect upon a promissory note in the principal amount of $19,000.00 plus interest, attorney fees and costs, and to foreclose the mortgage securing the obligation. Trust also sued Defendant Heidi J. Gill, the purchaser of the real property encumbered by a mortgage given to secure the promissory note. Trust settled with Gill for $9,500.00, applied this amount towards Harnish’s indebtedness, attorney fees and costs, and released the mortgage lien. Trust moved for summary judgment against Harnish for the remaining principal, interest, attorney fees and costs, plus accrued interest. The trial court granted judgment to Trust and denied Harnish’s motion for new trial. On appeal, Harnish asserts the judgment should be reversed because Trust’s settlement with Gill and release of the mortgage absolved Harnish’s mortgaged indebtedness; there was a failure of consideration; and Trust’s counsel’s allegedly concealed the settlement with Gill. After de novo review of the record, we hold that no issues of controverted fact precluded summary judgment in favor of Trust and affirm. Opinion by BELL, J.; MITCHELL, C.J., and PRINCE, P.J. concur. Jan. 6, 2023
Division IV
120,342 – In the Matter of: M.W., A.W., M.W., Jr., and M.W., Alleged Deprived Children. Mychael Walton, Sr., Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Mark C. McCormick, Trial Judge. In this termination of parental rights proceeding, Appellant Mychael Walton, Sr. (Father) appeals from the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights to his minor children. Father argues State has not proven by clear and convincing evidence that he failed to correct the conditions that led to the children’s deprived adjudication and argues his due process rights were violated because he was not afforded the opportunity to ameliorate the conditions. He further argues State failed to prove that termination of his parental rights is in the children’s best interest. Based on our review of the record, we conclude State presented clear and convincing evidence that Father failed to correct the conditions that led to the children’s adjudication, that Father was provided a rationally-based Individualized Service Plan to enable him to correct those conditions, and termination is in the children’s best interest. Consequently, we conclude Father was not denied due process and the court did not err in terminating his parental rights. Accordingly, we affirm. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by BARNES, P.J.; FISCHER, C.J., and HIXON, J., concur. Jan. 9, 2023