Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | Jan. 25, 2023
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
120,356 – Edmond C. Warrington, Gayle A. Warrington and Daniel Wesley, Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. Eddie W. Willis and Deborah L. Willis husband and wife; Defendants/Appellants, Kevin Wieck; Lori Jean McKee s/p/a/ Lori Jean Wieck; Brian K. Wolf; Mandy Wolfe; Grace Trust u/t/a February 1, 2001; John Doe and/or Jane Doe, as Occupants of the Premises; Branch Towers LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; Lamar Central Outdoor, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; American Tower Reit, Inc., A Delaware Corporation; Pam Robinson Real Estate, Inc., an Oklahoma Corporation; Dakil Actioneers, Inc. An Oklahoma Corporation; Trep Bail Bonds, Inc. An Oklahoma Corporation; Compsource Oklahoma, a Department of State of Oklahoma; Oklahoma Tax Commission, a department of the State of Oklahoma; Treasurer of Seminole County, State of Oklahoma; Board of County Commissioners of the County of Seminole, Oklahoma. Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of Seminole County, Oklahoma. Honorable Brett Butner, Trial Judge. Defendants/Appellants Eddie Willis and Deborah Willis appeal from an interlocutory order denying a request for temporary injunction in a foreclosure action related to a property in Seminole County filed by Plaintiffs/Appellees Edmond Warrington, Gayle Warrington, and Daniel Wesley (Warringtons). Appellants argue that the trial court should have granted the injunction to prevent the Appellees from interfering with a sale of the property by the Appellants to a third party. We summarily affirm the order under Oklahoma Supreme Court Rule 1.202. Opinion by SWINTON, J.; GOREE, P.J., and DOWNING, J., concur. January 18, 2023
120,171 – In Re the Marriage of: Shawn Ryan Hall, Petitioner/Appellee, v. Phillips Hall, Respondent/Appellant, Appeal from the District Court of Cleveland County, Oklahoma. Honorable Lori Puckett, Trial Judge. Respondent/Appellant Phillips Hall (Father) appeals from the trial court’s order granting the request to relocate filed by Petitioner/Appellee Shawn Hall (Mother). The trial court’s findings, that Mother’s request was made in good faith and that relocation was in the child’s best interests, are not against the clear weight of the evidence or an abuse of discretion. We affirm.
Opinion by SWINTON, J.; GOREE, P.J., and DOWNING, J. concur. January 19, 2023
120,461 – Kevin Adams, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Jessica Elizabeth Rhodes, Respondent/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Comanche County, Oklahoma. Honorable Emmit Tayloe, Trial Judge. Appellant, Kevin Adams, files an appeal from an order dismissing his Petition for Custody and Visitation. According to Appellant’s Summary of the Case, he had an affair with Appellee Jessica Elizabeth Rhodes, who was his employee and a married woman. Appellee became pregnant during the affair. However, Appellant was excluded as the biological father through DNA testing soon after the birth of the child, R.L.G.A. Appellee’s husband is listed on the birth certificate as the child’s father. Appellant is not the biological father, legal father, or adoptive parent. For those reasons, we summarily AFFIRM the trial court’s Order dismissing the petition pursuant to OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT RULE 1.202(a) and (d), 12 O.S.2021, Ch. 15, App. 1. Opinion by DOWNING, J.; GOREE, P.J., concurs in part and dissents in part and SWINTON, J., concurs. January 19, 2023.
120,497 – In the Matter of M.N. and M.N., Deprived Children, State of Oklahoma, Petitioner/Appellee, v. Michael Matzinger, Sr., Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Okmulgee County, Oklahoma. Honorable Deborah Reheard, Trial Judge. Respondent/Appellant Michael Matzinger, Sr., appeals from a judgment terminating his parental rights to M.M. and M.M. (Children), following a jury trial. The Indian Child Welfare Act is applicable to this case. Before trial, the court conducted a hearing in which it determined that the State had shown it made active efforts to prevent the breakup of the Indian family. The jury found termination was in Children’s best interests as a result of Matzinger’s failure to correct the conditions leading to the deprived adjudication and that the State had presented evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, supported by expert testimony, that continued custody was likely to result in serious harm to Children. We affirm. Opinion by SWINTON, J.; GOREE, P.J., and DOWNING, J., concur. January 19, 2023
120,737 – Wyatt Wadleigh v. State of Oklahoma, ex rel., Department of Public Safety, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Washington County, Oklahoma. Honorable Russell Vaclaw, Trial Judge. Plaintiff/Appellant, Wyatt Wadleigh (Driver), seeks review of the August 29, 2022 order of the Washington County District Court finding Defendant/Appellee, Oklahoma Department of Public Safety (DPS), did not act without a reasonable basis or frivolously and did not violate the Driver’s due process rights. We affirm the district court’s order. Opinion by GOREE, P.J.; SWINTON, J., and DOWNING, J., concur. January 19, 2023
Division II
Division III
119,976 – In The Matter of The Estate of: Jehu Leon Hassell, Jr, Deceased, Plaintiff/Appellee V. Shirley Wheeler (f/k/a Inman), an individual, Defendant/Appellant, Chevron Corporation; Metlife; and Fifelity Investments, Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Kurt G. Glassco, Trial Judge. Jehu Leon Hassell, Jr. and Shirley Wheeler married and divorced before Hassell died testate. During his lifetime, Hassell was the named insured on a life insurance policy and a participant in 401-K savings plan (funds). Following his death, Wheeler received the funds as Hassell’s designated beneficiary after Hassell failed to change the beneficiary designations following the divorce. Hassell’s estate was submitted to probate (Estate), and the executor of the Estate filed a petition seeking a determination of the proper recipient of the funds. Wheeler filed counterclaims against the Estate and motions for summary judgment asserting she was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on all issues, including ownership of the funds and ownership of the home Hassell and Wheeler lived in while married. The Estate filed a response to Wheeler’s motions and a counter motion for summary judgment relying on 15 O.S. 2011 §178 which generally provides that when a party to a contract with the power to designate a beneficiary dies after being divorced from the beneficiary, the beneficiary designation of the former spouse is revoked by operation of law. The trial court conducted a hearing on the motions and announced its ruling from the bench denying Wheeler’s motions and granting the Estate’s motion. The trial court memorialized its opinion six months later. Wheeler filed a motion for new trial which the court denied in a second order. Finally, the court entered a third order which found that Wheeler embezzled from the Estate by spending the funds on personal expenses even after the court entered a temporary restraining order, accordingly the court doubled the amount of actual damages pursuant to 58 O.S. 2011 §§293-295, in addition, the court awarded pre and post-judgment interest. Wheeler appealed attaching only the third order to her petition in error, therefore, the issues raised from the first two orders are waived. We find that the trial court’s determination Wheeler embezzled from the Estate is not clearly against the weight of the evidence; the Estate is not entitled to pre-judgment interest under 12 O.S. 2011 §727(E); the Estate is entitled to post-judgment interest from the date of the third order pursuant to 12 O.S. Supp. 2013 §727.1(C); and Wheeler should not be permitted to retain passive growth of the funds so as to not be unjustly enriched. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED. Opinion by MITCHELL, C.J.; PRINCE, P.J., and BELL, J., VOTE. January 20, 2023
120,476 – In The Matter Of: D.G., H.G. Jr., and C.K.G., State of Oklahoma, Petitioner/Appellee, V. Auhreba Driscoll, Respondent/Appellant Appeal from the District Court of Pawnee County, Oklahoma. Honorable Patrick Pickerill, Trial Judge. Appellant, Auhreba Driscoll (Mother), has appealed two final orders terminating her parental rights as to her three minor children. There was no dispute in the trial court that the Oklahoma and Indian Child Welfare Acts (ICWA) apply. Having reviewed the record and the Parties’ submissions, we find that the trial court properly exercised jurisdiction over the termination proceedings, that Mother was provided sufficient due process at all times during the proceedings, that the trial court complied with all relevant provisions of ICWA, and that the jury instructions and verdict forms were free of reversible error. We, therefore, AFFIRM the trial court’s separate Orders Terminating Parental Rights in this case. Opinion by PRINCE, P.J.; MITCHELL, C.J., and BELL, J., VOTE. January 23, 2023
Division IV
119,546 – Nicole Kish, an individual, Plaintiff/Appellant, and Nicole M. Kish, O.D., P.C., an Oklahoma Professional Corporation, Plaintiff, vs. Christian Sanchez, an individual and Kathryn Taylor, an individual, Defendants/Appellees, and Kristy Vendenhuevel, an individual, Defendant. Appeal from the District Court of Cleveland County, Hon. Jeff Virgin, Trial Judge. Plaintiff Nicole Kish appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants Christian Sanchez’s and Kathryn Taylor’s joint motion to dismiss Kish’s libel claims. The district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss Kish’s petition pursuant to the Oklahoma Citizens Participation Act, 12 O.S. Supp. 2014 §§ 1430 through 1440, based on its finding that all statements Kish complained of were either constitutionally privileged statements of pure opinion or subject to the common law fair comment privilege. We find no error in the district court’s determination that Defendants satisfied the statutory evidentiary burden imposed by 12 O.S. Supp. 2014 § 1434(D), and established by a “preponderance of the evidence” their defense that the online communications were privileged. The Citizens Participation Act required dismissal of Kish’s action. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by FISCHER, J.; BLACKWELL, P.J., and BARNES, V.C.J. (sitting by designation), concur. January 18, 2023