Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | Jan. 18, 2023
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
120,156 – Kelsey Dawn Hendrix, Petitioner/Appellee, v. Seth Daniel Hendrix, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Mary Ann Godsby, Trial Judge. Defendant/Appellant Seth Hendrix appeals from an order of protection entered against him and filed by Plaintiff/Appellee Kelsey Hendrix. Plaintiff and Defendant were also parties to a divorce action in the same county. The order of protection, entered on December 17, 2021, provides that Defendant shall not have any contact with Plaintiff through the duration of the order, which remains in effect until December 17, 2022. The language of this order was incorporated into the parties’ divorce decree, which also provided that the parties shall communicate important decisions through the appointed Parenting Coordinator with a copy to the Guardian Ad Litem until December 18, 2022. Because this order has expired by its own terms, Defendant’s appeal from the protective order is now moot. This appeal is dismissed. Opinion by SWINTON, J.; GOREE, P.J., and DOWNING, J., concur. Jan. 12, 2023
120,177 – In Re The Marriage Of: Steven M. Seibert, Petitioner/Counter-Respondent/Appellant, V. Regina Smart, Respondent/Counter -Claimant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Hughes County, Oklahoma. Honorable Timothy L. Olsen, Trial Judge. Petitioner/Appellant Steven M. Seibert (Husband) appeals from the Decree of Divorce and the order awarding attorney fees to Respondent/Appellee Regina Smart (Wife). The trial court found the parties had entered a valid pre-nuptial agreement, but later made an additional agreement regarding property. The court found that Husband had offered to pay Wife $100,000 if she helped him sell his ranch before divorcing and that Wife had performed under that agreement. The court awarded that amount to Wife, as well as $50,000 alimony, after finding the pre-nuptial agreement did not clearly waive alimony. The trial court’s findings are not against the clear weight of the evidence or an abuse of discretion. The order granting attorney fees includes the trial court’s weighing of the factors to show the award was equitable. We AFFIRM the decree and the fees order. Opinion by SWINTON, J.; GOREE, P.J., and DOWNING, J., concur. Jan. 12, 2023
Division II
120,433 – Ian’s Enterprise, LLC, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Linsey Prollock, Defendant/Appellee, and Aaron Prollock, Defendant. Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon Brent Dishman, Trial Judge. Ian’s Enterprise, LLC, appeals the district court’s order dismissing its suit against Linsey and Aaron Prollock with prejudice. The petition alleged that the Prollocks defaulted on two promissory notes entered in favor of Ian’s Enterprise’s predecessor. Dismissal appears to have been based on some combination of Linsey Prollock’s argument in her motion to dismiss that one of the promissory notes superseded the other and that the remaining note was not properly assigned to the plaintiff. On review, we find that both grounds offered in Linsey’s motion to dismiss were flawed. We therefore reverse the order dismissing the case and remand for further proceedings. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II by BLACKWELL, J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and FISCHER, C.J. (sitting by designation), concur. Jan. 11, 2023
Division III
120,542 – Donald Edgar Langston and Janett L. Tudor-Langston, indiviually as Trustees of the Donald E. Langston and Janett L. Tudor-Langston Trust, Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. Arrena Dawn Shepherd, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Grady County, Oklahoma. Honorable Kory S. Kirkland, Trial Judge. Defendant/Appellant, Arrena Dawn Shepherd, appeals from the trial court’s summary judgments in favor of Plaintiffs/Appellees, Donald Edgar Langston and Janett L. Tudor Langston, individually and as Trustees of the Donald E. Langston and Janett L. Tudor Langston Trust. Appellees brought this action to quiet their title in and to 40 net mineral acres (1/2 interest in approximately 80 acres) located in Grady County, State of Oklahoma. We hold the trial court’s judgments, which are attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and Exhibit “B,” contain adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of the court’s determination that there are no genuine issues of controverted fact and that Appellees are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, the trial court’s judgments are affirmed pursuant to Rule 1.202(d), Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules, 12 O.S. 2021 Ch. 15, App. Opinion by BELL, J.; PRINCE, P.J., and MITCHELL, C.J., concur. Jan. 13, 2023
Division IV