Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | Jan. 2, 2025
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
121,889 – Gregory Zeiders, D.O., and Zeiders Orthopedics, PLLC, Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants/Appellants, v. Memorial Hospital of Texas County, Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff/Appellee, and Board of County Commissioners of Texas County, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Texas County, Oklahoma. Honorable Jon K. Parsley, Trial Judge. Gregory Zeiders, D.O., both individually and through his business, Zeiders Orthopedics, PLLC, (Plaintiffs/Appellants) (collectively “Dr. Zeiders”) have appealed the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice of the claims in the Petition as a sanction for discovery abuses, stemming from a gradual progression of efforts by the trial court to secure proper responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents. This case involves claims of breach of contract and tortious interference against the Memorial Hospital of Texas County (Defendant/Appellee) (“the Hospital”). The dismissal of Dr. Zeiders’ claims was preceded by two court Orders compelling Dr. Zeiders’ production of the requested documents related to Dr. Zeiders’ patient records and related billing history. Dr. Zeiders argued on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion by employing the severe sanction of dismissal with prejudice. We find the record shows no abuse of discretion by the trial court and, thus, we AFFIRM the trial court’s Order of December 12, 2023. Opinion by PRINCE, J.; BELL, V.C.J., and SWINTON, J., concur. Dec. 31, 2024
Division II
120,681 (Companion with Case No. 120,684) – Charles Erickson and Jamie Erickson, Plaintiffs/Appellees, vs. Scott Lynn Rice, The Moonshine Ranch Trust Dated 6-15-14 and Jabez Property Management, Defendants/Appellants, and First Bank and Trust Co.; The Treasurer of Stephens County, Oklahoma; The Board of County Commissioners of Stephens County, Oklahoma, and Melinda Rice, Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of Stephens County, Oklahoma, Hon. Ken Graham, Trial Judge. The Appellees domesticated a judgment in Oklahoma and sought to foreclose on certain property located in Stephens County. Appellants have appealed the District Court’s August 8, 2022 Order confirming the Sheriff’s sale of the property. After review, we find Appellants failed to timely appeal several grounds for error alleged in their petition in error and subsequent brief. Those issues which were untimely appealed have been dismissed pursuant to the Supreme Court’s pre-assignment dismissal Order and are not subject to our review. Of those issues remaining, we conclude that the Trust, through its general appearance, waived any perceived deficiencies with respect to personal jurisdiction and service of process. We further conclude that nothing in the record indicates that this dispute in any way infringes on tribal self-government such that the district court was deprived of subject matter jurisdiction to enter its judgment of foreclosure, or to permit execution of same. Lastly, we adopt the reasoning from our companion case, Case No. 120,684, wherein we have concluded that the underlying Kansas judgment is entitled to full faith and credit. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II by FISCHER, J.; BARNES, C.J., and WISEMAN, P.J., concur. Dec. 23, 2024
120,684 (Consolidated with Case No. 120,858, and Companion with Case No. 120,681) – Charles Erickson and Jamie Erickson, Plaintiffs/Appellees, vs. Scott L. Rice; Scott L. Rice, Inc.; Jabez Land and Minerals, and Andrew Winburn, Defendants/Appellants. Appellants Scott L. Rice, Scott L. Rice, Inc., and Jabez Land and Minerals, LLC separately appeal two Canadian County district court orders denying two near-duplicative petitions to vacate a judgment entered against them in Kansas and later domesticated in Oklahoma. The appeals were assigned Case Nos. 120,684 and 120,858 and were subsequently consolidated. After review, we affirm the district court’s August 9, 2022 order in appeal No. 120,684 and, in so doing, recognize the validity of the foreign judgment and its entitlement to full faith and credit in Oklahoma. The district court’s October 19, 2022 order is vacated. That order addressed the Appellants’ second petition to vacate and is the subject of appeal No. 120,858. Because that order was entered after the Appellants filed their appeal in Case No. 120,684, the district court was without jurisdiction to decide the second petition to vacate. AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II by FISCHER, J.; BARNES, C.J., and WISEMAN, P.J., concur. Dec. 23, 2024
121,498 – Donald Edgar Langston and Janett L. Tudor-Langston, individually as Trustees of the Donald E. Langston and Janett L. Tudor-Langston Trust, Plaintiffs/Appellees, vs. Arrena Dawn Shepherd, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from Order of the District Court of Grady County, Hon. Kory S. Kirkland, Trial Judge. Shepherd commenced this August appeal more than thirty days after the June 20, 2023 judgment was filed and delivered. “An appeal to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, if taken, must be commenced by filing a petition in error with the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma within thirty (30) days from the date a judgment . . . is filed with the clerk of the trial court.” 12 O.S.2021 § 990A(A). “The interval allowed for filing a petition in error may not be extended by either the district court or the Supreme Court.” Okla. Sup. Ct. R. 1.21(a). Because Shepherd failed to commence this appeal of the June 20, 2023 judgment within thirty days of that judgment, this Court has no jurisdiction to decide this appeal. Rodgers v. Higgins, 1993 OK 45, ¶ 32, 871 P.2d 398, 413 (“Failure to bring a timely appeal constitutes a jurisdictional defect.”). Shepherd’s appeal is therefore dismissed. APPEAL DISMISSED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II by FISCHER, J.; BARNES, C.J., and WISEMAN, P.J., concur. Dec. 26, 2024
122,196 – Luttrell Concrete Construction, Petitioner, v. Adam Swinburne and The Workers’ Compensation Court of Existing Claims, Respondent. Proceeding to review an order of a three-judge panel of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Existing Claims. We agree with Adam Swinburne (Claimant) that because no Compromise Settlement form was signed by the parties, no enforceable settlement agreement exists. Therefore, we conclude the three-judge panel did not err in affirming the trial court’s decision to deny Petitioner’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement. In addition, we conclude the panel did not err in denying Petitioner’s request that Claimant’s compensation claim be dismissed. Consequently, we sustain the three-judge panel’s order affirming the decision of the trial court. SUSTAINED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by BARNES, C.J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. Dec. 31, 2024
Division III
121,710 – In the Matter of the Estate of Jo Ellen Hollis, Deceased, Debbie Lynn and Cecilia Evans, Respondents/Appellants, v. Randall Hollis, Personal Representative of the Estate of Jo Ellen Hollis, Petitioner/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Kurt G. Glassco, Trial Judge. Appellants, Debbie Lynn and Cecilia Evans, seek review of the Tulsa County District Court’s order of September 29, 2023 finding the 1992 will of Jo Ellen Hollis “is a valid will” and the 2022 will “appears to the Court to be procured by duress, menace, fraud or undue influence”. The district court admitted the 1992 will, finding the siblings of Jo Ellen Hollis, Randall Hollis and Debbie Hollis, are the testatrix’s “sole heirs, devisees and legatees”. AFFIRMED. Opinion by GOREE, J.; MITCHELL, P.J., and DOWNING, J., concur. Dec. 26, 2024
121,857 – Kinslow Family Limited Partnership, an Oklahoma Limited Partnership, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. William Sanders, an individual and GBR Cattle Company LLC, Defendants/Appellants. Appeal from the District Court of Seminole County, Oklahoma. Honorable Timothy L. Olsen, Trial Judge. William Sanders, Defendant/Appellant, appeals an order denying his motion to vacate a judgment. The judgment he sought to vacate was a sentencing order for indirect contempt for disobeying a temporary injunction in favor of Plaintiff/Appellee, Kinslow Family Limited Partnership. The order denying the motion to vacate was not an abuse of discretion and is AFFIRMED. Opinion by GOREE, J.; MITCHELL, P.J., and DOWNING, J., concur. Dec. 26, 2024
Division IV
121,662 – In the Matter of the Estate of Linzy Lee Hill, Deceased. Brightwater Capital, LLC, Appellant, vs. Lenzy Lamont Hill, the Personal Representative of the Estate of Linzy Hill, Deceased, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Tom Riesen, Trial Judge. Ancillary plaintiff, Brightwater Capital, LLC, appeals the district court’s Journal Entry of Judgment sustaining the Personal Representative’s Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice Brightwater Capital, LLC’s Amended Ancillary Petition and denying Brightwater Capital’s Amended Ancillary Petition, which the district court treated as a motion to reconsider. We conclude the district court erred in treating the Amended Ancillary Petition as a motion to reconsider and, therefore, in denying the motion to reconsider and in sustaining Personal Representative’s Motion to Dismiss Brightwater Capital’s Amended Ancillary Petition. This matter is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HUBER, P.J.; HIXON, J., concurs, and BLACKWELL, J., dissents. Dec. 27, 2024
121,584 – In the Matter of the Guardianship of Judith D. Vaughn, an incapacitated person, DeWayne Vaughn and Kimberly Ann Vaughn, Appellants, vs. Judith D. Vaughn, Grant Williams, and Deborah Williams, Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Thomas C. Riesen, Trial Judge. DeWayne Vaughn and Kimberly Ann Vaughn appeal the district court order denying their motion to reconsider the district court’s journal entry dismissing this matter for lack of jurisdiction under Oklahoma’s Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Jurisdiction Act, 30 O.S.2021 §§ 3-301 through 3-322. Based upon our review of the facts and applicable law, the district court’s May 30, 2023, journal entry dismissing the guardianship proceedings, as well as the August 4, 2023, order denying the Vaughns’ motion to reconsider, are reversed. REVERSED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HUBER, P.J.; HIXON, J., and BLACKWELL, J., concur. Dec. 31, 2024