Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | Jan. 31, 2024
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
120,976 – Jennifer Mansfield Bagzis, Petitioner/Appellee, v. Pamela Mathis Evans, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Deborrah Ludi Leitch, Trial Judge. Defendant/Appellant, Pamela Mathis Evans, appeals the granting of a Protective Order. Petitioner/Appellee, Jennifer Mansfield Bagzis, filed a Petition for Protective Order and claimed that Ms. Evans harassed and stalked her. Ms. Bagzis was engaged in divorce litigation with her husband or ex-husband at the time. Ms. Evans was living with Ms. Bagzis’ ex-husband and inserted herself into the domestic dispute between the former couple. Actions taken by Ms. Evans included, but were not limited to, repeatedly following and contacting Ms. Bagzis, communicating with Ms. Bagzis’ parents, communicating directly with Ms. Bagzis’ divorce lawyer, and initiating a welfare check at Ms. Bagzis’ home. The trial court found that there had been domestic abuse and/or stalking and issued an Order of Protection for a period of two years. The Order of Protection also prohibited Ms. Evans from possessing firearms or ammunition for the term of the Order. We have reviewed the record and find that the trial court committed no error with the exception of a single finding in the Order of Protection. Consequently, the Order of Protection is AFFIRMED, AS MODIFIED. Opinion by PRINCE, J.; BELL, V.C.J., and SWINTON, P.J., concur. Jan. 24, 2024
121,218 – In the Matter of L.L., Alleged Deprived Child Georgianna Allen and Cody Loveless, Appellants, v. The State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Grady County, Oklahoma. Honorable Regina Lowe, Trial Judge. Appellants Georgianna Allen (Mother) and Cody Loveless (Father) appeal from an order terminating their parental rights to minor child L.L. based upon a failure to correct conditions and the length of time the minor child was in foster care, and on the basis of incarceration as to Father only. Appellants argue that the trial court did not determine termination was in the minor child’s best interests, that there was no evidence of physical abuse, and that the trial court did not make a finding that the minor child would be adopted following termination. We find that Appellants’ arguments on appeal do not warrant reversal, and therefore affirm. Opinion by SWINTON, P.J.; BELL, V.C.J., and PRINCE, J., concur. Jan. 24, 2024
121,621 – Kendall Bonner, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. American Environmental Landfill, an Oklahoma corporation, Defendant/Appellee, and Board of County Commissioners of Tulsa County and Board of County Commissioners of Osage County, Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of Osage County, Oklahoma. Plaintiff/Appellant Kendall Bonner appeals the trial court’s order denying her motion to reconsider summary judgment entered in favor of Defendant/Appellee American Environmental Landfill (Landfill). Bonner was injured when her car slipped in sludge on the public road adjacent to Landfill’s premises. Bonner alleged the sludge was caused by trucks exiting Landfill and that Landfill was aware of the risk of sludge on the roadway. Bonner alleged Landfill undertook the responsibility to clean the road, which Bonner argued gave rise to a duty to prevent the harm or to warn motorists. Bonner testified she saw the sludge, was aware of the danger, and slowed down to avoid it. The undisputed facts show the hazard was obvious and apparent to Bonner. Bonner’s claims against the Boards of County Commissioners of Osage and Tulsa County were previously dismissed and the order on appeal is therefore a final, appealable order. We affirm. Opinion by SWINTON, P.J.; BELL, V.C.J., and PRINCE, J., concur. Jan. 24, 2024
121,767 – Mary Tiger as Administrator of the Estate of Shawn Rex Watashe, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Corey Blake Stewart, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Caroline Wall, Trial Judge. Plaintiff/Appellant, Mary Tiger, as Administratrix of the Estate of Shawn Watashe (“Plaintiff” or “Tiger”), appeals the trial court’s grant of Summary Judgment in favor of Defendant/Appellee, Corey Stewart. The Plaintiff sought damages under the Wrongful Death statute as a consequence of the decedent (Plaintiff’s family member) having been killed at night while a pedestrian on a roadway in Tulsa, Oklahoma. We hold that, as a matter of law, a plaintiff is required to present evidence demonstrating that a decedent experienced “conscious pain and suffering” to establish damages for mental pain and anguish in a wrongful death action and defeat a motion for summary judgment. Consequently, we AFFIRM the trial court’s decision here to grant Summary Judgment to Stewart on that basis because Plaintiff’s damages were limited to only a claim for mental pain and anguish. Opinion by PRINCE, J.; BELL, V.C.J., and SWINTON, P.J., concur. Jan. 24, 2024
Division II
121,511 – Kevin Easley, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. City of Norman, Defendant/ Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Cleveland County, Hon. Michael D. Tupper, Trial Judge. Plaintiff Kevin Easley (Easley) appeals the grant of summary judgment and mandatory injunction in favor of the City of Norman (City), on Easley’s appeal of City’s denial of a request for variance pertaining to two windows installed at Easley’s property in City’s Chautauqua Historic District. City contended Easley’s request for a variance was barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion because it had been considered and rejected in an earlier proceeding. Easley contended that he may raise this issue again, because City had revised and relaxed its historical guidelines with respect to windows on rear elevations. However, it is undisputed that the window is not on a rear elevation. Additionally, the same argument, including an argument City has already relaxed the guidelines as to rear elevations, was raised in the prior proceeding. We affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment and mandatory injunction. AFFIRMED. Opinion on Rehearing from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by HIXON, J.; BARNES, V.C.J., and WISEMAN, P.J., concur. Jan. 30, 2024
Division III
121,201 – Tonkawa Saltwater Disposal, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Agiletech Group, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Kay County, Oklahoma. Honorable David Wilkie, Trial Judge. Appellant Agiletech Group, LLC (Agiletech) appeals from trial court’s order granting Petition for Forcible Entry and Detainer filed by Appellee Tonkawa Saltwater Disposal, LLC (Tonkawa). Tonkawa entered into a Purchase Agreement (contract) wherein Agiletech agreed to purchase Tonkawa’s saltwater disposal property. Agiletech moved onto the property after forming the contract. The evidence showed the parties never closed on the property, the contract expired, and no written agreements were effectuated to extend the deadlines. Further, evidence established no proceeds were exchanged between the parties and provisions of the contract were never fulfilled. Tonkawa filed its petition to regain possession of the property. The trial court granted the forcible entry and detainer and gave Agiletech twenty (20) days to evacuate the premises. After review of the record, we AFFIRM. Opinion by DOWNING, J.; MITCHELL, P.J., and GOREE, J., concur. Jan. 25, 2024
Division IV
120,467 – In re the Marriage of: Sarah Somer Carey, Petitioner/Appellee, vs. Luke Wesley Carey, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Logan County, Hon. Susan Worthington, Special Judge. Appellant Luke Carey appeals the district court’s order modifying his child support payments. Luke also appeals the court’s decision to proceed to a hearing on the motion to modify over his objection, to impose a sanction prohibiting him from presenting evidence regarding his finances, and to impose compounding interest of two percent on the child support arrearage after the court backdated his child support to the date the motion to modify was filed. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the district court’s order modifying child support, but modify the amount to conform to the evidence presented. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV by BLACKWELL, J.; HUBER, P.J., and HIXON, J., concur. Jan. 24, 2024
120,824 – Zachary Schulze, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Howard-H, Inc., d/b/a Bob Howard Honda and American Honda Finance Corp., Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Natalie J. Mai, Trial Judge. Zachary Schulze (Schulze) appeals the trial court’s order granting Howard-H, Inc. d/b/a Bob Howard Honda and American Honda Finance Corp.’s (collectively, Defendants) motions to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. The evidence presented to the trial court is sufficient to support the court’s finding that Schulze was informed he was signing Arbitration Agreements. Further, there is nothing in the record to indicate a false impression was created that “shrouded the existence” of the Arbitration Agreements. Schulze therefore failed to establish he was constructively fraudulently induced into signing the Arbitration Agreements, and the trial court correctly granted Defendants’ motions to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. The order is affirmed. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, J.; HUBER, P.J., and BLACKWELL, J., concur. Jan. 24, 2024
120,823 – The Calvert Company and Calvert Investment Company, a limited partnership, Plaintiffs/Appellees, vs. Antoinette Calvert; Antoinette Calvert 2006 GST Exemption Residuary Trust; Allison Street Dickey; Allison Street 1983 Grandchildren’s Trust; Erin Street Baber and Erin Street 1983 Grandchildren’s Trust, Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs/Appellants, S. Whitfield Lee, Third-Party Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Anthony L. Bonner, Trial Judge. Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs Antoinette Calvert, Antoinette Calvert 2006 GST Exemption Residuary Trust, Allison Street Dickey, Allison Street 1983 Grandchildren’s Trust, Erin Street Baber, and Erin Street 1983 Grandchildren’s Trust (collectively, the “Calverts”) appeal the grant of a Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement in favor of Plaintiff, the Calvert Company and Third-Party Defendant, S. Whitfield Lee and Calvert Investment Company (collectively, the “Lees”). Both parties sought to enforce a settlement agreement dividing jointly held oil and gas properties into two separate “tranches” to be held individually by each party. The Calverts claim to have discovered after the fact that their chosen tranche is not of equal value to that of the Lees because title to numerous properties in the tranche was defective. They moved to enforce the agreement by reallocating the property. The Lees moved to enforce the same agreement, arguing the Calverts were obligated to accept the properties in their tranche and to deed to the Lees their selected properties, as agreed. The record is devoid of evidence supporting the Calverts’ contention that title to any property in their tranche was defective or the difference in value between the tranches. We affirm the trial court’s grant of the Lees’ countermotion to enforce the agreement and denial of Calverts’ Motion to Vacate. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, J.; HUBER, P.J., concurs, and BLACKWELL, J., concurs specially. Jan. 24, 2024
120,929 – Rentzel Properties, LLC, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Minh Le, Defendant/ Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Pottawatomie County, Hon. John Canavan, Trial Judge. Rentzel Properties, LLC appeals the trial court’s order granting it judgment against Minh Le. This case involves the breach of a contract to purchase a certain real property. Plaintiff argues that in granting it judgment for Defendant’s breach of contract, the trial court should have awarded it additional damages of $168,000. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we reverse the trial court’s order with directions to enter an order in accordance with our Opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, J.; HUBER, P.J., and BLACKWELL, J., concur. Jan. 25, 2024
120,263 – Greenway Park Commercial Owners Association, Inc., an Oklahoma non-for-profit corporation and Greenway Park, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company, Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants, vs. R.T. Properties, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company, Defendant/Counterclaimant/Appellee, and Rodney Thornton, an individual, Cross-Claimant/Appellee, and Old Well, LLC, Intervenor/Appellant. Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Cleveland County, Hon. Jeff Virgin, District Judge. Intervenor/Appellant Old Well, LLC appeals a decision of the district court awarding attorney fees against the Greenway Park Commercial Owners Association, Inc. (Association) and Greenway Park LLC (Greenway Park) in favor of R.T. Properties, LLC and Rodney D. Thornton (RTP/Thornton). On review, we find that RTP/Thornton filed a satisfaction of judgment in favor of the Association some seven years ago, and this satisfaction included any right to attorney fees. As such, we reverse the decision of the trial court as to the Association. REVERSED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV by BLACKWELL, P.J.; FISCHER, J., and HUBER, J., concur. Jan. 30, 2024
120,582 – Carol Giddens, individually; Sammy Giddens, individually; and Estell Excavating, Inc., an Oklahoma Corporation, Plaintiffs/Appellants, vs. Peggy Kates, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Natalie Mai, Trial Judge. Plaintiffs, Carol Giddens, individually; Sammy Giddens, individually; and Estell Excavating, Inc., an Oklahoma Corporation, (collectively Plaintiffs) appeal the district court’s order denying their motion to reconsider the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant, Peggy Kates, and against Plaintiffs. After review of the record and applicable law, we find the district court erred in denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider. 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.; BLACKWELL, J., and HIXON, J., concur. Jan. 30, 2024