Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | Jan. 28, 2026
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
122,107 – Karina Gaspar Serrano and Youlanda Serrano Rubio, Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. Joyce Brown, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable William D. LaFortune, Trial Judge.This is an appeal from a quiet title action brought by Plaintiffs Karina Gaspar Serrano and Yolanda Serrano Rubio. We affirm the trial court’s order quieting title in favor of Plaintiffs. Opinion by GOREE, J.; SWINTON, P.J., and BELL, J. concur. Jan. 22, 2026
122,507 – William Phillips Eckles, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Robinson Publishing Co., Inc., an Oklahoma Corporation Appeal from the District Court of Hughes County, Oklahoma. Honorable Timothy L. Olsen, Trial Judge. Defendant/Appellant Robinson Publishing Co., Inc. (Robinson) appeals from an order vacating the dismissal of a petition for libel, slander, and false light invasion of privacy filed by Plaintiff/Appellee William Eckles (Eckles). Robinson moved for dismissal of the petition under the Oklahoma Citizens Participation Act, 12 O.S. §§ 1430, et seq. The trial court vacated the dismissal pursuant to 12 O.S. § 1437, determining that the failure to rule on the motion within 30 days of the hearing required it. We disagree, and REVERSE. Opinion by SWINTON, P.J.; BELL, J., concurs and GOREE, J., dissents. Jan. 22, 2026
122,944 – Tamara J. Pittman Breckinridge, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. David Bohlken, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Loretta Radford, Trial Judge. David Bohlken, Defendant/Appellant, appeals from an order denying his motion for reconsideration of a protective order entered in favor of Petitioner/Appellee, Tamara Breckinridge. The order denying Appellant’s motion to reconsider, filed February 28, 2025, is AFFIRMED. Opinion by GOREE, J.; SWINTON, P.J., and BELL, J., concur. Jan. 22, 2026
123,251 – In the Matter of: J.S., Jr., Jonathan Swift, Appellant, v. The State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Creek County, Oklahoma. Honorable Laura Farris, Trial Judge. In this deprived child proceeding, Appellant, Jonathan Swift, the biological father of J.S., JR. (JSJ). the minor child, appeals from the district court’s order terminating his parental rights. The State of Oklahoma (State) moved to terminate Father’s parental rights, Father waived a jury trial, and then Father failed to appear at two subsequent scheduled hearings which were noticed by court announcements memorialized by minute orders. The court minute order dated May 30, 2025, stated Father failed to appear, but quantified “default under advisement pending best interest.” Father appeared at the best interest trial set for June 2, 2025. State’s witness was sworn and examined and testified as to the child’s best interest. After the best interest trial, the district court found reasonable efforts were made, Father failed to make the corrections and termination was in the child’s best interest. On appeal, Father claims the district court erred in terminating his parental rights because notice of the May 30, 2025, hearing, i.e. the non-jury trial date, was deficient and violated his right to due process. This Court holds the petition to terminate provided Father with the statutory notice required in 10A O.S. 2021 §1-4-905(A)(1) and (2) and Father was provided with legally sufficient notice of subsequent hearings. The order terminating Father’s parental rights is affirmed. Opinion by BELL, J.; SWINTON, P.J., GOREE, J., concur. Jan. 22, 2026
123,307 – In the Matter of the Estate of: John Horton Dayan, deceased. Dava Dayan, Interested Party/Appellant, v. Mary Ellen Dayan-Varnum, Special Administrator/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Kurt G. Glassco, Trial Judge. The appealed order declared that (a) Dava litigated her heirship, (b) the court made a final determination that she is not an heir-at-law, (c) the determination constituted a final judgment pursuant to 12 O.S. §681, and (d) appellant is precluded from litigating the issue of her heirship. Based on the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s recent pronouncement in Evans v. Greer, the Journal Entry of Judgment filed July 21, 2025, is REVERSED. Opinion by GOREE, J.; SWINTON, P.J., and BELL, J., concur. Jan. 22, 2026
Division II
122,000 – Kali Carpenter, Plaintiff, vs. Nathan J. Lester and Christina A. Meadows-Lester, husband and wife, Defendants/Appellants, if Living and if Deceased, their Known and Unknown Heirs, Executors, Administrators, Devisees, Trustees, Personal Representatives and Assigns; MERS as Nominee for First American Mortgage, Inc.; First American Mortgage, Inc.; and City of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Defendants, and Click N’ Close, Inc., Intervenor/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Canadian County, Hon. Khristan Strubhar, Trial Judge. Defendants Nathan J. Lester and Christina A. Meadows-Lester (the Lesters) appeal a final order of the district court distributing tax sale proceeds from real property to mortgage holder, Click N’ Close, Inc. (CNC). The Lesters argue CNC’s mortgage was extinguished by the sale of the real property to satisfy a tax obligation and that CNC thus has no claim to remaining proceeds from the sale of that property. On review of the record, the parties’ briefing on appeal, and the applicable law, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand with instructions to disburse the funds to the Lesters. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by HIXON, C.J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. Jan. 27, 2026
122,516 – Paul Herron, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. The City of Oklahoma City, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Anthony L. Bonner, Jr., Trial Judge. Plaintiff Paul Herron appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendant, City of Oklahoma City (City) on claims for wrongful discharge. City asserted, among other things, that Herron was subject to a collective bargaining agreement providing a grievance procedure and culminating in arbitration were his exclusive remedies. Herron asserted his claims were not barred because he withdrew from and did not complete the grievance procedure, and claimed he was not required to do so because discrimination was allegedly inherent in the grievance process. On review of the record and applicable law, we affirm. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by HIXON, C.J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. Jan. 27, 2026
121,735 – In re the Marriage of: Debbie Wittman, Petitioner/Appellee, vs. Ronald Dean Wittman, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Cleveland County, Hon. Michael Tupper, Trial Judge. Husband appeals a Decree of Dissolution of Marriage claiming the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Wife’s divorce Petition was not verified. He claims the trial court abused its discretion in bifurcating divorce from property division, though he did not object at trial. Husband also contends the trial court’s award of support alimony to Wife was not supported by competent evidence. On review of the record on appeal and the parties’ briefing, we reject Husband’s propositions of error and affirm the decree in its entirety. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by HIXON, C.J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. January 27, 2026
Division III
122,751 – Lacey Ann Carmichael, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Ryan D. Carmichael, Respondent/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Logan County, Oklahoma. Honorable Louis A. Duel, Trial Judge. Appellant, Lacey Ann Carmichael (Wife) appeals from the trial court’s November 18, 2024 Order granting her attorney fees pursuant to 43 O.S.2021, § 112.6. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we find REVERSAL is required and REMAND for specific findings pursuant to State ex rel. Burk v. City of Oklahoma City, 1979 OK 115, 598 P.2d 659, and 43 O.S.2021, § 112.6. Opinion by DOWNING, P.J.; PRINCE, V.C.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. Jan. 23, 2026
122,754 – Lisa May Souvannasy, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Savanah Janea Sayler, Defendant/Appellee, New Hampshire Insurance Co., Intervenor. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable William D. LaFortune, Trial Judge. This appeal stems from an award of costs following a jury verdict in this automobile negligence case. A jury found in favor of Plaintiff/Appellant, Lisa May Souvannasy (“Appellant”), awarding actual damages in the sum of Ten Thousand One Hundred, Fifty Dollars. Based on our review of the record, notwithstanding that a jury verdict has been entered and court costs have been awarded, it is undisputed that no Final Judgement has been entered following the jury verdict. Consequently, we find that this appeal should be DISMISSED as premature. See Sup.Ct.R. 1.26(c) & (d). Opinion by PRINCE, V.C.J.; DOWNING, P.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. Jan. 23, 2026
123,022 – Raymond Greg Chapman, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. John W. Anderson, Jr., individually; and John W. Anderson, Jr., P.C., an Oklahoma Professional Corporation, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Douglas E. Drummond, Trial Judge. In the second of two companion cases arising from a lawsuit filed by Plaintiff/Appellant Raymond G. Chapman (“Appellant”) asserting a claim of legal malpractice against his former attorney and attorney’s law firm (“Defendants”), the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants. Defendants previously represented Appellant in a lawsuit against the City of Tulsa, and prevailed on the claim of wrongful termination/breach of contract, recovering a jury verdict in the amount of $346,000. Appellant’s legal malpractice claim asserted that Defendants did not sufficiently present evidence and argument of the full amount of Appellant’s alleged damages to the jury, specifically the value of Appellant’s lost benefits. Consequently, Appellant argued, he recovered less than he would have otherwise. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment set forth undisputed facts that evidence and argument did cover damages related to lost benefits and argued that, without an expert witness to testify as to the nature of an attorney’s duty of care, breach thereof, and causation, Defendant was unable to prevail on his claim at trial. Reviewing the record, including the parties’ summary judgment briefing, the Court of Civil Appeals found that the undisputed facts did show that evidence and argument relating to alleged lost benefits was admitted in the previous trial. Further, while expert testimony on the elements of legal malpractice was not necessary required in all cases, the record did not show that Appellant could produce any evidence that could establish these elements or refute the countervailing expert testimony of Defendants. Summary judgment AFFIRMED. Opinion by MITCHELL, J.; DOWNING, P.J., and PRINCE, V.C.J., concur. Jan. 23, 2026
123,023 – Raymond Greg Chapman, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. John W. Anderson, Jr., individually; and John W. Anderson, Jr., P.C., an Oklahoma Professional Corporation, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Douglas E. Drummond, Trial Judge. In one of two companion cases arising from a lawsuit filed by Plaintiff/Appellant Raymond G. Chapman (“Appellant”) asserting a claim of legal malpractice against his former attorney and attorney’s law firm (“Defendants”), the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed a district court ruling denying Appellant’s motion for leave to amend his witness and exhibit lists after the close of discovery. Appellant sought leave to add an accounting expert that had been identified after the close of discovery, and ostensibly an as-yet unidentified expert witness qualified to testify as to the elements of an attorney’s duty of care, breach and causation. Appellant made no showing that there was “good cause” for amendment of the scheduling order, did not comply with local procedural rules for the filing of a motion to amend the scheduling order, and only filed the motion after Defendants had filed a motion for summary judgment largely on the grounds that Appellant could not prevail on his claim at trial without such an expert witness. Under the facts and circumstances, the Court of Civil Appeals found that the trail court had not abused its discretion in denying Appellant’s motion. Opinion by MITCHELL, J.; DOWNING, P.J., and PRINCE, V.C.J., concur. Jan. 23, 2026
Division IV
123,108 – In the Matter of W.P., Alleged Deprived Child: Carla Pettit, Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Bryan County, Hon. Abby Rogers, Trial Judge. Carla Pettit (Mother) appeals from an Order Terminating Parental Rights (Order) to her minor child W.P. Mother and W.P. are enrolled members of the Choctaw Nation. The Order is based on Mother’s failure to correct conditions substantial erosion of the parent/child relationship, and time spent in foster care with the Department of Human Services. Among the propositions of error Mother raises on appeal for reversal is her contention the Order is deficient because the district court failed to make necessary findings in this action governed by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901-1963 (2024). We agree the Order is legally deficient; however, we do not reverse the Order but rather vacate the Order and remand with instructions. VACATED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by BARNES, J.; BLACKWELL, P.J., and HUBER, J., concur. Jan. 21, 2026
122,488 — Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance, Inc., Plaintiff/Appellee, vs. Shelby K. Lawson, Administrator of the Estate of Tiffany Mayo, Deceased, Defendant/ Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Muskogee County, Hon. Timothy King, Trial Judge. Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance, Inc., moved for default judgment against Mayo arising out of a Contract and Security Agreement. Mayo did not answer or appear. Vanderbilt moved the district court for default judgment, and the district court granted it. Thereafter, Mayo filed a motion to have the default judgment set aside asserting irregularities in the process, asserting she had spoken with Vanderbilt after the Petition was filed, though she never appeared. Mayo appealed the judgment and denial of her motion to vacate. We affirm the district court’s Order Denying Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment in its entirety, as we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion, and the default judgment is affirmed. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, C.J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. Jan. 22, 2026
122,972 — Bradley Alan Burton, Petitioner, vs. Frontier Tank Lines, Old Republic Insurance Co. and The Workers’ Compensation Commission, Respondents. Appeal from the Workers’ Compensation Commission. Bradley Alan Burton (“Petitioner”) was injured in a work-related accident and filed a workers’ compensation claim against his employer, Frontier Tank Lines, and its insurer, Old Republic Insurance Company (collectively “Respondents”). Petitioner amended his original claim to include three injured teeth designated by his personal dentist upon dental examination. The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) entered an Order that the three teeth were compensable and authorized medical treatment for Petitioner’s teeth by a dentist to be designated by Respondents. The designated dentist examined Petitioner and identified additional teeth that might have been injured as a result of the work accident. Accordingly, Petitioner sought authorization for medical treatment of the additional teeth identified. The ALJ entered an Order Denying Medical Treatment. Thereafter, Petitioner requested a review of the ALJ’s Order by the Workers’ Compensation Commission. The Commission affirmed the ALJ’s decision. The Petitioner now appeals the Commission’s Order. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the Commission’s Order Affirming Decision of Administrative Law Judge.AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, C.J.;WISEMAN, P.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. Jan. 22, 2026
121,636 – Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., Plaintiff/Appellee, vs. Aldos, LLC, operating under the trade name of Oklahoma Shelters, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Natalie Mai, Trial Judge. Aldos, LLC, operating under the trade name of Oklahoma Shelters, (Oklahoma Shelters) appeals the trial court’s Journal Entry of Judgment entered after a non-jury trial ordering that the plaintiff, Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., recover judgment against Aldos, LLC, operating under the trade name of Oklahoma Shelters, with interest and costs. Having reviewed the record and determined that the trial court’s decision is based on competent evidence, we find that the judgment should be affirmed. The trial court’s September 7, 2023, Journal Entry of Judgment is affirmed. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HUBER, J.; BLACKWELL, P.J., and BARNES, J., concur. Jan. 22, 2026
123,218 – In the Matter of A.C., E.C., M.C., I.C. I.C., H.C., Z.C. & Q.C., Alleged Deprived Children, Dontez Clayton, Appellant, vs. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Proceeding to review an Order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Kaitlyn G. Allen, District Judge. Dontez Clayton, the father of the three minor children at issue in this case, M.C., I.C., and Z.C., appeals the trial court’s decision to appoint permanent guardians for the children. Upon review, we find that the guardianship was proper pursuant to § 1-4-709 and that the trial court’s finding that the guardianship is in the minor children’s best interests is supported by clear and convincing evidence. Accordingly, we affirm. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV by BLACKWELL, P.J.; BARNES, J., and HUBER, J., concur. Jan. 23, 2026
122,585 – Stevie Jantz, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Geico Casualty Company, Defendant/Appellee, and Josh Mahan, Defendant. Appeal from the District Court of Canadian County, Hon. Paul Hesse, Trial Judge. Plaintiff/appellant, Stevie Jantz (Plaintiff), appeals a district court order, which granted summary judgment in favor of defendant/appellee, Geico Casualty Company (Geico), on all of Plaintiff’s claims against Geico, and denied Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on her claim against Geico for breach of contract. After review of the record and consideration of applicable law, we conclude that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Geico. The order granting summary judgment in favor of Geico is affirmed. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HUBER, J.; BlackwelL, P.J., and BARNES, J., concur. Jan. 27, 2026