Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | Jan. 24, 2024
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
Division II
Division III
120,137 – Dedondra Carson, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. F.E. Remodeling Commercial and Residential remodeling a/k/a Felipe M. Enciso, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Deborrah Ludi Leitch, Trial Judge. Plaintiff/Appellant, DeDondra Carson, appeals from a judgment in favor of Defendant/Appellee, F.E. Remodeling Commercial and Residential Remodeling, a/k/a Felipe M. Enciso. The record on appeal does not support the error alleged in Appellant’s brief and the judgment is AFFIRMED. Opinion by GOREE, J.; MITCHELL, P.J., and DOWNING, J., concur. January 19, 2024
120,671 – Sheila Maner and Tommy Ramos, d/b/a G&G Properties, Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. Travis Young and Micha Young, Deefndants/Appellants. Appeal from the District Court of Garfield County, Oklahoma. Honorable Dennis Hladik, Trial Judge. This case is a property dispute with a complicated procedural posture. Of the nine issues raised in the petition in error, only one issue is properly on appeal. We hold the order granting ejectment in favor of the Appellees is supported by competent evidence and affirm. The order cancelling the Appellants’ mechanic’s lien and quieting title in Appellees is reversed as neither issue was properly before the trial court. The remaining issues are waived, and we decline to review them. Opinion by MITCHELL, P.J.; GOREE, J., and DOWNING, J., concur. January 19, 2024
121,045 – In Re the Marriage of Gibson: Sophie Gibson, Petitioner/Appellee, v. Kyle Gibson, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Kirsten Pace, Trial Judge. Appellant, Kyle Gibson (Husband) appeals from the trial court’s issuance of the Decree of Dissolution of Marriage (Decree). Husband raises four propositions of error: (1) the trial court erred in waiving signatures of the parties on the Decree; (2) Husband’s trial attorney acted beyond the scope of his authority by emailing the trial court and advising that the Decree could be entered over his objection; (3) the trial court erred by not conducting an evidentiary hearing as to the enforceability of the mediated agreement; and (4) Husband’s trial counsel’s performance was deficient and denied him due process. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we reject Husband’s arguments and AFFIRM. Opinion by DOWNING, J.; MITCHELL, P.J., and GOREE, J., concur. January 19, 2024
121,707 – Billy Elliott, an individual, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. University of Central Oklahoma, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. Honorable Richard Ogden, Trial Judge. Appellant, Billy Elliott, appeals from the trial court’s granting of Summary Judgment in the above matter. Appellant’s lawsuit against his former employer, University of Central Oklahoma (UCO), alleged that UCO breached a “series of annual written agreements” when UCO terminated Appellant because he abused his “privileged level access to excessively track the whereabouts of another University employee for personal reasons.” Upon review of the record before us, we AFFIRM. Opinion by DOWNING, J.; MITCHELL, P.J., and GOREE, J., concur. January 19, 2024
Division IV
121,429 — Joshua Kokojan and Joshua Koehn, Plaintiffs/Appellants, vs. The Brick Bar, LLC and Toni Bellamy, Defendants/Appellees, and Rachelle MacEachen, Jordan Nida, Kyle Emert, Taber Cook, Josh Backhaus, Jordan Clark, Quenton Thayer and Unknown Members of The Brick Bar, LLC, Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of Garfield County, Hon. Tom L. Newby, Trial Judge. Joshua Kokojan and Joshua Koehn (Plaintiffs) appeal the district court’s Journal Entry dismissing The Brick Bar, LLC (Bar), Rachelle MacEachen (MacEachen), and Toni Bellamy (Bellamy) from the case. This case involves a fight that occurred in the Bar’s parking lot. The issue is whether the Plaintiffs’ amended petition stated a claim upon with relief can be granted against these three defendants. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we reverse the dismissals of the Bar and MacEachen, and remand this matter to the district court for further proceedings. However, we affirm the dismissal of Bellamy. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, J.; HUBER, P.J., and BLACKWELL, J., concur. January 23, 2024