Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | Jan. 22, 2025

Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals

Division I

121,921 – Roy R. Brigge, Trustee of the Roy R. Brigge Revocable Trust, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Jim Martin, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Okmulgee County, Oklahoma.  Honorable Cynthia D. Pickering, Trial Judge. Defendant/Appellant Jim Martin appeals an order denying his motion to vacate a default judgment in this forcible entry and detainer case brought by Plaintiff/Appellee Roy R. Brigge, as Trustee of the Roy R. Brigge Revocable Trust, and a writ of assistance removing him from possession of the property. We affirm.  Opinion by SWINTON, J.; GOREE, P.J., and PRINCE, J., concur. Jan. 17, 2025


121,925 – In the Matter of K.O., Deprived child, Esron Otto, Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma.  Honorable Theresa Dreiling, Trial Judge. This appeal arises from a juvenile deprived action which ultimately resulted in the termination of parental rights of Esron Otto [Father] to K.O., his biological child based on the jury finding that Father “ . . . has abused or neglected any child or failed to protect any child from abuse or neglect that is heinous or shocking, and that termination of parental rights is in the best interests of the child.”  We affirm.  Opinion by GOREE, P.J.; SWINTON, J., and PRINCE, J., concur. Jan. 17, 2025


122,151 – Sevgi Q. Muhammad, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Board of Review of the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission, Oklahoma Employment Security Commission and Resource One, a Moore Company, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma.  Honorable Caroline Wall, Trial Judge. Plaintiff/Appellant, Sevgi Muhammad has appealed the District Court’s Order affirming the Defendant/Appellee, Oklahoma Employment Security Commission’s (“OESC”) denial of unemployment compensation benefits.  Ms. Muhammad was denied unemployment benefits because OESC determined she had voluntarily resigned from her position at Resource One without demonstrating good cause.  Ms. Muhammad disputed the denial of her unemployment benefits on two basis: (1) that she had not intended to voluntarily resign from her position but was misunderstood due to her language barrier; and (2) that she demonstrated “good cause” to voluntarily resign based upon intrusive behavior by her direct supervisor.  We find that the record contains evidence supporting the denial of Ms. Muhammad’s unemployment benefits and, accordingly, the District Court’s Order is AFFIRMED. Opinion by PRINCE, J.; SWINTON, J., and MITCHELL, J., (sitting by designation), concur. Jan. 17, 2025


Division II

Division III

121,431 – Monsi L’ggrke, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. LM General Insurance Company, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Kelly Greenough, Trial Judge. This is an appeal from a judgment on a jury verdict in an insurance bad faith lawsuit.  On appeal, insured claims multiple errors.  First, he contends it was error for the jury to find in his favor on his claim for uninsured motorist bad faith but not on his claim for breach of contract, and he states that the jury’s verdict is inconsistent because the jury did not find the insurance company was obligated to provide full benefits under both portions of the policy if the company provided full benefits under one portion of the policy.  Our review reveals the jury’s verdicts were not inconsistent with the law and the evidence.  Next, we find no error in the insured’s claim the trial court erred by excluding portions of the insurance company’s corporate representative’s video deposition testimony regarding offers at mediation.  Next, the insured states it was error to admit the medical opinion of a non-testifying doctor.  While the admittance of the evidence was error, it was harmless error and not grounds for reversal because the information was available to the jury through other evidence.  Further, the insured contends it was error to admit his prior Department of Corrections medical records, however, the record on appeal does not support the insured’s contention.  Finally, the insured claims the court erred by quashing several subpoenas duces tecum issued to the insurance company’s expert witnesses during discovery.  The trial court did not abuse its discretion by quashing the subpoenas as they did not comply with the statutory requirements.  A search of the record reveals the jury’s verdict is conclusive as to all disputed facts and is supported by competent evidence, therefore, we will not disturb the court’s order.  AFFIRMED. Opinion by MITCHELL, J.; DOWNING, P.J., and BELL, C.J., concur. Jan. 17, 2025


122,564 – ACB Bank, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Elijah Kennedy, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Garfield County, Oklahoma. Honorable Tom Newby, Trial Judge. Appellant Elijah Kennedy appeals the trial court’s September 3, 2024 Combined Order Granting Plaintiff ACB Bank’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment with Brief in Support and Denying Defendant Elijah Kennedy’s Motion for Continuance. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we AFFIRM. Opinion by DOWNING, P.J.; BELL, C.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. Jan. 17, 2025


Division IV

121,548 – Andrea Givings, Personal Representative of the Estate of Floyd Givings, Deceased, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Bridgette T. Jeffery, Defendant/ Appellee.  Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Aletia Haynes Timmons, Trial Judge.  Andrea Givings, personal representative of the Estate of Floyd Givings, Deceased (Personal Representative), appeals a judgment that denied the Estate’s claim for breach of fiduciary duty, emotional distress, unjust enrichment, conversion, replevin, and punitive damages.  Personal Representative further appeals the trial court’s denial of fee and costs.  Based on our review of the facts and applicable law, we reverse that portion of the judgment ordering the probate court to surcharge $1,108.78 from Personal Representative’s share of any proceeds from the Estate.  We further reverse that portion of the judgment denying Personal Representative’s request for costs and remand the matter to the court with directions to award costs pursuant to 12 O.S.2021, §§ 928 and 942.  The judgment is affirmed in all other respects.  AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, V.C.J.; BARNES, P.J., HUBER, J., concur. Jan. 16, 2025