Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | July 1, 2026
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
122,798 – Darrell Dougherty, Individually, and as Parent and Next of Kin of D.E.D., a minor child, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. The City of Stillwater, Oklahoma and Department of Human Services, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Payne County, Oklahoma. Honorable Nikki G. Leach, Trial Judge. Plaintiff/Appellant, Darrell Paul Dougherty (Father), appeals from the trial court’s final journal entry denying various motions and requests for relief filed by Father in his tort action against Defendants/Appellees, The City of Stillwater, Oklahoma (City) and The Department of Human Services (DHS). The trial court granted City and DHS summary judgment on Father’s underlying tort action on June 28, 2024. Subsequently, the trial court entered the final journal entry – which is the judgment attached to Father’s petition in error – wherein the court denied Father’s post-judgment motion to reconsider the journal entry dated June 28, 2024; Father’s post-judgment request and motion for the recusal of Judge Nikki Leach; and Father’s post-judgment amended request for the court to notify OSBI and the Oklahoma Bar Association about the Defendants’ actions. After de novo review of the record, this Court affirms the trial court’s final journal entry and the underlying summary judgment. Opinion by BELL, J.; SWINTON, P.J., and GOREE, J. June 25, 2026
122,873 – Mike Fritts and Sheryl Fritts, Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. Keith Cathey, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Caroline Wall, Trial Judge. Defendant/Appellant, Keith Cathey (Vendor), appeals from a $526,000.00 jury verdict in favor of Plaintiffs/Appellees, Mike and Sheryl Fritts (Purchasers). The jury found Vendor knowingly conveyed a residence to Purchasers without disclosing an existing infestation of bats in violation of the Residential Property Condition Disclosure Act, 60 O.S. 2021 §831 et seq. (Act). Vendor claims the trial court’s judgment should be reversed because the damage award was unreasonably excessive and resulted in a windfall to Purchasers; and Purchasers took years to remediate, failed to supplement discovery and inform Vendor of on-going repairs which resulted in spoilation. Next, Vendor claims the trial court erred when it refused to give spoliation and mitigation jury instructions. Vendor also claims the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted into evidence an invoice and email from Bird-X (the manufacturer of anti-bird and anti-bat sonic devices) which supported the crucial element that Vendor purchased the device and had knowledge of the bat infestation six months before the sale. Vendor next argues the trial court abused its discretion when it excluded Vendor’s evidence that Purchasers inflated their damages. Vendor also asserts the trial court erred and abused its discretion when it denied Vendor’s motion for mistrial due to the trial judge’s bias towards Vendor and his counsel. Finally, Vendor claims the trial court erred as a matter of law when it permitted Purchasers to pursue damages while their revocable trust owned the property. After reviewing the record, this Court affirms the trial court’s judgment. Opinion by BELL,
J.; SWINTON, P.J., and GOREE, J., add votes. June 25, 2026
123,523 – Paul E. Wilson, and Joni K. Doherty, husband and wife, Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. The Oak Project LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company; Gas Diehler LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company; and Joshua Diehl, an individual, Defendants/Appellants. Appeal the District Court of Cleveland County, Oklahoma. Honorable Jeff Virgin, Trial Judge. In a motion to dismiss, Defendants challenged the trial court’s jurisdiction over them based on a contractual forum selection clause in a contract between Plaintiffs and the Oak Project, LLC. During the pendency of the motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce a settlement agreement. We AFFIRM IN PART AND REVERSE IN PART. Opinion by GOREE, J.; SWINTON, P.J., concurs and BELL, J., concurs in part and dissents in part. June 25, 2026
123,709 – Thomas L. Luker, Trustee of the Thomas L. Luker Revocable Trust; Plaintiff/Appellee, v. David Ray Hollingshed, and Shelly Jean Hollingshed; Wagoner County Board of County Commissioners; and Wagoner County Treasures; Defendants/Appellants. Appeal from the District Court of Wagoner County, Oklahoma. Honorable Timothy King, Trial Judge. Defendants/Appellants, David and Shelly Hollingshed, seek review of the Wagoner County District Court order of December 10, 2025 which granted Appellee, Thomas L. Luker, Trustee of the Thomas L. Luker Revocable Trust, a permanent private easement for access by necessity across property owned by Appellants. The permanent private easement was granted pursuant to 27 O.S. 1910 §6. The decision of the Wagoner County District Court is AFFIRMED. Opinion by GOREE, J.; SWINTON, P.J., and BELL, J., concur. June 25, 2026
Division II
123,472 – Trey Jones, Plaintiff/Appellee, vs. State of Oklahoma ex rel., Service Oklahoma, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Cleveland County, Hon. Jeff Virgin, Trial Judge. Service Oklahoma appeals the district court’s Order setting aside the revocation of Trey Jones’ (“Jones”) driver’s license. The district court sustained Jones’ hearsay objections as to certain pages of an exhibit offered by Service Oklahoma to demonstrate essential elements of the revocation and found that insufficient evidence had been admitted that would establish a revocation of Jones’ driver’s license. Based on our 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. June 24, 2026
Division III
123,290 – U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, Successor in Interest to Bank of America, National Association, as Trustee, Successor by Merger to Lasalle Bank National Association, as Trustee for Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors Trust, Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Certificate, Series 2007-HEI, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Tomothy M. Berry; Nellie A. Berry, Joe Doe, Occupant, and Midland Funding LLC, Defendants/Appellants. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Kelly Greenough, Trial Judge. Defendants/Appellants Timothy Berry and Nellie Berry (Appellants) appeal the district court’s order awarding attorney fees and costs to Plaintiff/Appellee U.S. Bank National Association (Bank), after Bank prevailed in a mortgage foreclosure and lien enforcement action. A jury returned a verdict in favor of Bank in the amount of $309,869.20. The district court awarded Bank $96,427.28 in attorney fees and costs pursuant to the terms of the Mortgage and 42 O.S. §176. On appeal, Appellants contend the district court improperly included fees attributable to a collateral Oklahoma Supreme Court proceeding (an unsuccessful application for a writ of mandamus by the appellants), services performed by Bank’s out-of-state counsel before approval of his pro hac vice application, and work performed by multiple law firms. Appellants also challenge the reasonableness of the hourly rate used by the district court in calculating the award. Because the record reflects that the district court properly applied the Burk factors and adequately explained the basis for its award, the order awarding attorney fees and costs is AFFIRMED. Opinion by MITCHELL, J.; DOWNING, P.J., and PRINCE, V.C.J., concur. June 26, 2026
123,302 – Manuel Coronado and Martha Cornado, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Encarnacion Perez Hernandez and Lorena Pacheoco Rodriguez, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Caroline Wall, Trial Judge. On appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals was the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants/Appellees Encarnacion Hernandez and Loreno Rodriguez (“Defendants”) in an ejectment action brought by Plaintiffs/Appellants Manuel and Martha Coronado (“Plaintiffs”). The parties had executed a contract for deed whereby Defendants would purchase a residence from Plaintiffs in exchange for a term of monthly payments. When Defendants allegedly missed several payments, Plaintiffs filed a forcible entry and detainer action in small claims court, seeking possession of the residence and the payments that Defendants had previously made. Defendants responded with a claim of ownership in the residence, and the case was transferred to the general docket to proceed as an action in ejectment. Defendants asserted a counterclaim and interpleaded funds that allegedly would satisfy the remaining obligation under the contract for deed in its entirety. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendants as to Plaintiffs’ claim against them, directed Plaintiffs to convey title of the residence to Defendants, and released the interpleaded funds to Plaintiffs. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the district court with respect to summary judgment against Plaintiffs on their claim against Defendants because a contract for deed that establishes an “immediate and continuing right of possession” in real property constitutes a constructive mortgage pursuant to 16 O.S. 2021 §11A, defeating Plaintiffs’ cause of action. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the portion of the district court’s order that directed conveyance of the residence in exchange for the interpleaded funds, because this was tantamount summary judgment on Defendants’ counterclaim, which was neither requested nor supported by the summary judgment record. Opinion by MITCHELL, J.; DOWNING, P.J., and PRINCE, V.C.J., concur. June 26, 2026
123,645 – In the Matter of: A.D.J.R., B.J.R., Z.F.J.R. & C.A.R. III, Chester Radcliff, Jr., Appellant, and April Radcliff, Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Mary Ann Godsby, Trial Judge. Chester Radcliff, Jr. (Father) and April Radcliff (Mother) appeal the trial court’s orders filed on November 18, 2025, terminating their parental rights as to A.R., C.R., B.R., and Z.R. (collectively Children). A.R., B.R., and Z.R. have also filed an appeal challenging the termination of Mother’s parental rights. We have reviewed the record and applicable law and are not persuaded by the parties’ arguments. Clear and convincing evidence supports termination. We AFFIRM. Chester Radcliff, Jr. (Father) and April Radcliff (Mother) appeal the trial court’s orders filed on November 18, 2025, terminating their parental rights as to A.R., C.R., B.R., and Z.R. (collectively Children). A.R., B.R., and Z.R. have also filed an appeal challenging the termination of Mother’s parental rights. We have reviewed the record and applicable law and are not persuaded by the parties’ arguments. Clear and convincing evidence supports termination. We AFFIRM. Opinion by DOWNING, P.J.; PRINCE, V.C.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. June 26, 2026
Division IV
123,688 – In the Matter of T.L., Alleged Deprived Child: Stephan Love, Appellant, vs. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Proceeding to review an Order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Kevin McCray, Special Judge. Stephan Love, father of the minor child at issue in this case, T.L., appeals from the court’s order adjudicating T.L. deprived. Upon careful review, the order is affirmed. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV by BLACKWELL, P.J.; BARNES, J., and HUBER, J., concur. June 26, 2026
122,673 – Matthew Wallace and Genesis Wallace, Plaintiffs/Appellees, vs. David Stanley Dodge, LLC, Defendant/Appellant. David Stanley Dodge, LLC, asks this court to reverse the trial court’s order denying its motion to disqualify attorney Rodney Hunsinger and HB Law Partners, PLLC, from representing the plaintiffs in this case, Matthew and Genesis Wallace. Upon review, we affirm the court’s order denying David Stanley’s motion to disqualify. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV by BLACKWELL, P.J.; BARNES, J., and HUBER, J., concur. June 26, 2026
123,430 – Lindsey Mulinex Ewert, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. OKC Car Connection, LLC, an Oklahoma domestic liability company, Defendant/Appellee, and James Hooper, an individual, and Kelley Hooper, an individual, Defendants. Proceeding to review an Order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Amy Palumbo, District Judge. Lindsey Mulinix-Ewert appeals from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of OKC Car Connection. Upon review, the order granting summary judgment is affirmed as OKC Car Connection has no duty to ensure its customers obtain liability insurance after purchase. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV by BLACKWELL, P.J.; BARNES, J., and HUBER, J., concur. June 26, 2026