Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | Jan. 14, 2026
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
122,713 – Gina L. Meador, individually and as the Co-Trustee of the Barton Family Trust, Plaintiff/Appellee/Counter-Appellant/Counter-Appellee, and Ashley Yates, M.D., as Co-Trustee of the Barton Family Trust, Plaintiff/Appellee, vs. Denise A. Kirk, Defendant/Appellant/Counter-Appellee, and Susan R. Anderson, Defendant/Appellee/Counter-Appellant/Counter-Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Beckham County, Oklahoma. Honorable Jill C. Weedon, Trial Judge. The primary parties in the underlying action are the three surviving daughters of Emmajean Barton, deceased. The action concerns the interpretation of the Trust Agreement of the Barton Family Trust dated May 26, 2004, as amended on March 13, 2013 (Trust) and the distribution and conveyance of Trust assets and non-trust real property – the “East Farm” and the “Northeast Farm” – that was gifted by Emmajean during her lifetime to her daughters. Plaintiff, Gina L. Meador, is the attorney-in-fact for her sister Defendant, Susan R. Anderson. Gina and her daughter, Plaintiff, Ashley Yates, M.D., are the co-trustees of the Trust. To adhere to Emmajean’s Trust directives, Gina, as attorney-on-fact, mistakenly conveyed Susan’s interest in Northeast Farm to Defendant, Denise A. Kirk, and to Gina. Gina intended to only convey Susan’s interest in “East Farm” to Denise and Gina. Gina brought this action to cancel the deed to correct the mistake. Susan and Denise were named as defendants. Denise later amended her answer to add counterclaims against the trustees for a trust accounting, breach of trust, and for their removal as co-trustees. After a merits trial, the trial court entered a thirty-two (32) page journal entry containing findings of fact and conclusions of law wherein the court reviewed the trustees’ accounting and determined the beneficiaries’ shares of the Trust. Additionally, the court reformed the deed to only convey Susan’s interest in the East Farm to Denise and Gina; the court, sua sponte, assessed damages against Gina for violating her duties as Susan’s attorney-in-fact; and the court denied, in part, Gina’s application to pay all of Gina’s and Ashley’s attorney fees and costs (as co-trustees and attorney-in-fact) from the Trust. The court held the Trust may be charged $34,418.75 in attorney fees and $3,551.00 in costs. The court’s order also found the trustees breached their duties as trustees but denied Denise’s request to remove the co-trustees and to assess damages against the trustees. The court further ordered Gina to submit quarterly reports of income and expenditure to her sisters until the Trust was fully distributed. All the sisters appealed. After examining the whole record and weighing the evidence, this Court finds the trial court did not abuse its discretion in making the procedural rulings which are challenged on appeal. This Court also finds the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly against the weight of the evidence or contrary to law. This Court affirms the trial court’s journal entry as set forth in this opinion, and affirms the journal entry, in part, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 1.202(b) and (d), 12 O.S. 2021, Ch. 15, App. Opinion by BELL, J., SWINTON, P.J., and GOREE, J., concur. January 13, 2026
122,940 – George A. Cotrill, Plaintiff/Respondent in Interpleader/Appellant, v. American Fidelity Assurance Company, Defendant/Petitioner in Interpleader, and Allison Paige Long, Respondent in Interpleader/ Appellee. Plaintiff/Respondent in Interpleader/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Rogers County, Oklahoma. Honorable Stephen R. Pazzo, Trial Judge. George A. Cotrill, appeals from summary judgment granted in favor of Respondent in Interpleader/Appellee, Allison Paige Long. Following the death of Sherri D. Masters (Decedent), Cotrill, brother of Decedent, and Long, daughter of Decedent, each submitted claims to American Fidelity Assurance Company (Insurer), claiming to be the beneficiary of Decedent’s life insurance policy. Cotrill filed this action contending Insurer wrongfully denied his claim. Insurer responded with a petition in interpleader, acknowledging it owed the policy proceeds, but asking the court to dismiss it and decide whether Cotrill or Long is the beneficiary. Cotrill and Long agreed the material facts were not disputed and asked the trial court to enter summary judgment for one of them. The undisputed facts show Decedent, in compliance with the policy, used Insurer’s form to communicate her intent to change her beneficiary from Long to Cotrill, and Insurer received the form. While the record suggests Insurer may have requested additional information before processing the request, no evidentiary materials in the summary judgment record give rise to an inference that Decedent was aware either that Insurer wanted additional information or that the form, on which Decedent included the same amount of information as a prior, effective form, was considered insufficient by Insurer. The summary judgment record shows Decedent did everything she reasonably knew to do to change the beneficiary to Cotrill. We therefore REVERSE summary judgment entered in favor of Long AND REMAND with directions to enter judgment in favor of Cotrill. Opinion by SWINTON, P.J., BELL, J., and GOREE, J., concur. January 13, 2026
123,435 – Joshua Blacketer, an individual, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Chet Saindon an individual, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Ottawa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Jennifer McAffrey, Trial Judge. In this premises liability lawsuit, Plaintiff/Appellant, Joshua Blacketer, appeals from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant/Appellee, Chet Saindon (Homeowner). Homeowner’s son-in-law invited Plaintiff to Homeowner’s house. Plaintiff was sitting on Homeowner’s second story outdoor balcony for several hours consuming alcohol. Plaintiff stood up, became entangled in a chair, stumbled backwards and fell into and through the balcony’s railing. Plaintiff fell approximately ten (10) feet to the ground and sustained injuries. The court granted judgment to Homeowner holding Homeowner only had the duty to Plaintiff as set forth in OUJI CIVIL 11.13, i.e. the duty to warn of any hidden danger on the premises that is actually known to the owner and that the licensee is not likely to discover by himself; and that Plaintiff failed to produce evidence of a disputed material fact that Homeowner breached any duty to Plaintiff. On appeal, Plaintiff submits that reasonable persons could differ as to whether Homeowner had actual knowledge of the dangerous condition of the railing because Homeowner personally constructed and installed the railing. After de novo review, this Court finds Plaintiff produced sufficient evidence of negligence for submission of the case to the jury. Accordingly, the trial court’s judgment is reversed, and this matter is remanded for further proceedings. Opinion by BELL, J., GOREE, J., and SWINTON, J., concur. January 13, 2026
Division II
Division III
Division IV