Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | Jan. 8, 2025
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
121,889 – Gregory Zeiders, D.O., and Zeiders Orthopedics, PLLC, Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants/Appellants, v. Memorial Hospital of Texas County, Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff/Appellee, and Board of County Commissioners of Texas County, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Texas County, Oklahoma. Honorable Jon K. Parsley, Trial Judge. Gregory Zeiders, D.O., both individually and through his business, Zeiders Orthopedics, PLLC, (Plaintiffs/Appellants) (collectively “Dr. Zeiders”) have appealed the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice of the claims in the Petition as a sanction for discovery abuses, stemming from a gradual progression of efforts by the trial court to secure proper responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents. This case involves claims of breach of contract and tortious interference against the Memorial Hospital of Texas County (Defendant/Appellee) (“the Hospital”). The dismissal of Dr. Zeiders’ claims was preceded by two court Orders compelling Dr. Zeiders’ production of the requested documents related to Dr. Zeiders’ patient records and related billing history. Dr. Zeiders argued on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion by employing the severe sanction of dismissal with prejudice. We find the record shows no abuse of discretion by the trial court and, thus, we AFFIRM the trial court’s Order of December 12, 2023. Opinion by PRINCE, J.; BELL, V.C.J., and SWINTON, J., concur. December 31, 2024
Division II
121,908 – In the Matter of the Estate of: Mamie A. Boggs, Deceased, Sonya Boggs, Appellant, vs. Kathryn A. Sanford, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Cleveland County, Honorable Bethany E. Stanley, Trial Judge. Appellant Sonya Boggs appeals the trial court’s order admitting to probate the Last Will and Testament of Mamie A. Boggs dated January 7, 2013, and revoking all former wills. We find that because the Decedent’s 1998 Will has not been admitted, the trial court had jurisdiction to admit the 2013 Will to probate, but the trial court could not admit the 2013 Will until the validity of a subsequent, possibly revocatory will, the 2015 Will, is decided. After review of the record and relevant law, we reverse the order and remand to the trial court to determine the validity of the 2015 Will. Because these issues are dispositive, we will not address any remaining issues urged on appeal. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; BARNES, C.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. December 31, 2024
120,604 – In the Matter of Vicki L. Stewart Trust, Dated February 13, 2015, Midfirst Bank, as Trustee of the Trust created by the Vicki L. Stewart Trust for the Benefit of Cole L. Stewart, and Cole Stewart, Appellants, vs. Linzi L. Stewart-Crawford, as Trustee of the Vicki L. Stewart Trust, Dated February 13, 2015, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Cleveland County, Honorable Thad Balkman, Trial Judge. Cole Stewart and MidFirst Bank, as Trustee of the Trust Created by Vicki L. Stewart for the Benefit of Cole L. Stewart, appeal the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Linzi Stewart-Crawford, as Trustee of the Vicki L. Stewart Trust dated February 13, 2015, and Cole Stewart also appeals the order denying his motion to vacate, reconsider, correct, or modify the trial court’s order granting Linzi’s motion for summary judgment. The issue presented is whether the trial court erred in granting Linzi judgment as a matter of law. After review, we conclude it was error to grant summary judgment in Linzi’s favor; we reverse the trial court’s order and remand with directions to enter judgment for MidFirst Bank and Cole Stewart. We must also reverse the order denying Cole’s motion to reconsider, correct, modify, or vacate the summary judgment in favor of Linzi. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; BARNES, C.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. January 3, 2025
121,523 – Albert G. Gerhart, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. John Robert Bennett, Chairman of the Republican Party of Oklahoma, Defendant/Appellee, and Republican Party of Oklahoma, Shane Dillon Jemison, Vice Chairman of the Republican Party; Pamela Ann Pollard, National Committeewoman of the Republican Party and Steven Walter Curry, National Committeeman of the Republican Party, Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Honorable Aletia Haynes Timmons, Trial Judge. Plaintiff Albert G. Gerhart appeals the trial court’s order granting in part Defendant John Robert Bennett’s application for attorney fees and costs and the trial court’s order denying Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider. For the reasons given in our opinion, we conclude that Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider based on new evidence of fraud pursuant to 12 O.S. § 651 and filed more than a year after the order was not timely filed pursuant to 12 O.S. § 653 and failed to meet the requirements of 12 O.S. § 655. And although the post-trial motion was timely filed as to the trial court’s July 25, 2023 order, the court’s order awarding fees and costs pursuant to 12 O.S.2021 § 1438(A) was correct, and we therefore affirm the trial court’s September 29, 2023 order denying Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; BARNES, C.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. January 3, 2025
Division III
Division IV
121,865 – Dustin Wayne Watts, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Belmar North, HOA; Andrew Arnold; Rob Griffin; Heather Lawson; and Iris Copeland, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Cleveland County, Hon. Michael D. Tupper, Trial Judge. Plaintiff appeals from the district court’s order appointing an arbitrator and ordering the parties “to conduct the mediation in accordance with the Rules of Arbitration provided for in the Oklahoma Arbitration Act.” The settled-law-of-the-case doctrine operates to bar the issues that Mr. Watts seeks to relitigate in this second appeal. Therefore, we affirm the district court’s order. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by BARNES, P.J.; HIXON, V.C.J., and HUBER, J., concur. January 6, 2025