Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | Jan 5, 2022
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
119,563 – In the Matter of the Jack and Gladys Scott Trust dated September 27, 1996: Dennis H. Henry, Petitioner/Appellee, v. Virginia Partridge and David Henry, Respondents/Appellants. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Kurt G. Glassco, Trial Judge. David Henry and Virginia Henry, Appellants, appeal the trial court’s order distributing estate assets. There is no substantial controversy over the material fact that David Henry, Appellee, was the contract beneficiary of two annuities and the annuities were not subject to division as estate assets. The order is affirmed. Opinion by GOREE, P.J.; MITCHELL, J., and PRINCE, J., concur. – Dec. 30, 2021
Division II
119,565 – Randy and Rhonda Holt, Plaintiffs/Appellees/Counter-Appellants, vs. Steve Carlson, et al., Defendant/Debtor, and Columbia Insurance Group, Garnishee/Appellant/Counter-Appellee. Appeal from an order of the District Court of Seminole County, Hon. Timothy L. Olsen, Trial Judge. Garnishee Columbia Insurance Group appeals a trial court order finding that the insurance policy it issued to Steve & Sons, Inc., covered the actual damages award, punitive damages award, court costs, and prejudgment and post-judgment interest award in favor of Plaintiffs Randy and Rhonda Holt and against Steve Carlson and Steve & Sons, Inc. The Holts in their counter-appeal contest the trial court’s finding that the insurance policy did not cover attorney fees. After de novo review, we conclude the Holts’ claims were not covered by the policy, and the judgment against Columbia finding coverage is reversed, but we affirm the trial court’s decision excluding the attorney fee award from policy coverage. AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; BARNES, J., and BLACKWELL, J., concur. – Dec. 29, 2021
119,342 – Mark McCullough, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Rachelle Elaine Koczman, a/k/a Celia McCullough, a/k/a Elaine Scott, a/k/a Ann Riley McCullough, and other unknown aliases, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Aletia Haynes Timmons, Trial Judge. In this lawsuit filed for intentional infliction of emotional distress, Mark McCullough (Father) appeals from the trial court’s order denying an award of punitive damages against Rachelle Elaine Koczman (Mother). From our review of the record on appeal, we conclude the trial court had competent evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence to support its determination that Father failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that Mother’s actions were done in reckless disregard of the rights of others or intentionally and with malice. Consequently, we conclude the trial court did not err in denying punitive damages to Father. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by BARNES, J.; RAPP, J. (sitting by designation), concurs, and WISEMAN, P.J., dissents. – Dec. 30, 2021
119,004 – Harvey David Cramer, Jr., Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Todd Arthur Cramer, individually, and as Trustee of the Harvey D. Cramer 2006 Revocable Trust, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Cindy H. Truong, Trial Judge. Defendant asserts the trial court “failed to hold a hearing as required by statute prior to awarding attorney fees, in connection with its denial of the Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order.” While Defendant’s assertion may have been true at the time he originally filed this appeal, a hearing was subsequently held pursuant to an order of the Oklahoma Supreme Court during the pendency of this appeal; therefore, Defendant’s argument lacks merit. Regarding the additional arguments set forth in Defendant’s Brief-in-chief, Plaintiff correctly asserts in his Answer Brief, pursuant to Oklahoma Supreme Court Rule 1.11(k)(1), that because these arguments “do not contain a single authority,” that “these propositions should not be considered on review.” For example, Defendant provides no supporting authority for his argument that the district court “erred as a matter of law in prejudging the matter” by issuing an intermediate or preliminary ruling, despite this issue potentially touching upon various issues of great importance, such as a district court’s long-established power to modify its intermediate rulings at any time, and a complaining party’s responsibility to take some action in the proceedings below (which did not occur here) to challenge an assigned judge’s alleged lack of neutrality and detachment. In sum, we conclude the issue raised regarding the failure on the part of the trial court to hold a hearing lacks merit because a hearing was held after the original filing of this appeal, and we further conclude Defendant has failed to demonstrate the trial court otherwise erred or abused its discretion. Therefore, we affirm. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by BARNES, J.; RAPP, J. (sitting by designation), concurs, and WISEMAN, P.J., concurs in result. – December 30, 2021
Division III
Division IV
119,116 – Katina Dieng, Petitioner, vs. Great Plains Coca-Cola Bottling Company and The Workers’ Compensation Commission, Respondents. Appeal from the Workers’ Compensation Commission. Claimant Katina Dieng seeks review of an order of the Oklahoma Workers’ Compensation Commission en banc, affirming the award of permanent partial disability (PPD) entered by an administrative law judge (ALJ) against Employer Great Plains Coca-Cola Bottling Company. The ALJ’s findings in its order were based on, and within the range of, that evidence. The award of benefits to Claimant, based on a finding of 12% PPD to her left hip, is not clearly erroneous in light of the evidence submitted. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV by FISCHER, V.C.J.; RAPP, J., and HIXON, J., concur. – Dec. 29, 2021