Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | July 10, 2024
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
Division II
121,181 – In re the Marriage of: Zachary Aaron Coplon, Petitioner/Appellee, v. Kali Danielle Coplon, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Barry L. Hafar, Trial Judge. Kali Danielle Coplon (Mother) appeals from the district court’s order finding Zachary Aaron Coplon (Father) shall pay the sum of $5,248.88 to Mother for day care expenses she incurred during the divorce proceedings. The court’s determination that Father pay twenty-five percent of the child care expenses at issue is inconsistent with the parties’ temporary child support plan and is therefore contrary to the intent expressed in 43 O.S. 2021 § 118G. We reverse the district court’s order and direct the court on remand to enter an order requiring Father to pay Mother $18,245.09, representing 86.9% of the total child care expense of $20,995.50. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by BARNES, C.J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. July 3, 2024
121,937 – Tinker Federal Credit Union, a Federally Chartered Credit Union, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Lyndee Nicole Cross, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Aletia Haynes Timmons, Trial Judge. Tinker Federal Credit Union (TFCU) appeals from an order of the trial court granting Lyndee Nicole Cross’s 12 O.S. 2021 § 2012(B)(6) motion to dismiss its claim of fraudulent transfer. We conclude the motion to dismiss was converted to a motion for summary judgment and thus the trial court’s order of dismissal is instead the grant of summary judgment to Ms. Cross. Because the trial court, in effect, determined that a transfer on death deed as a matter of law negated a finding of actual intent to defraud TFCU despite contrary inferences that could be drawn from other undisputed facts, the trial court improperly granted summary judgment to Ms. Cross. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by BARNES, C.J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. July 5, 2024
Division III
121,090 – Joseph Zalar, Jr., Plaintiff/Appellant, v. The Lawtonian, L.L.C., John Rutherford, and Steve Fite, Defendants/Appellees, Joseph Zalar, Jr., Plaintiff/Appellant, v. John R. Rutherford, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Comanche County, Oklahoma. Honorable Michael C. Flanagan, Trial Judge. Plaintiff/Appellant, Joseph Zalar, Jr., seeks review of the January 17, 2023 Comanche County District Court Judgment, which found Appellant had the burden to prove the conveyance of his property, the Lawtonian Hotel/Apartments, was invalid. Zalar conveyed two-thirds of the Lawtonian L.L.C. to Defendant/Appellee, John Rutherford and his wife, Gayle Rutherford, on January 13, 2015, while Zalar was convalescing under the Rutherfords’ care and supervision, during a gap between two hospitalizations. The district court found Zalar failed to meet his burden and the conveyance of two-thirds of the Lawtonian L.L.C. from Zalar to the Rutherfords was deemed a valid conveyance. Opinion by GOREE, J.; MITCHELL, P.J., concurs and DOWNING, J., dissents. July 8, 2024
121,716 – Lauren Miller, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Farshid Zandi and Relick Realty, LLC, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Douglas E. Drummond, Trial Judge. In 2008, Defendant/Appellee Farshid Zandi, through his limited liability company Relick Realty LLC (collectively “Zandi”), created and operated multiple business entities using the identity of his former partner’s adult daughter, Plaintiff/Appellant Lauren Miller (Miller). Miller alleged the majority of the income from the businesses went to Zandi but was reported on Miller’s tax returns. In consideration for, and in exchange for allowing her identity to be used, in September of 2014, Zandi purchased a home for Miller to own and occupy, free and clear of any liens or mortgages. Zaandi, however, never titled the property in Miller’s name. In 2022, the court, in a previously filed case, quieted title to the home in Zandi. In that case Miller asserted counterclaims for quiet title, declaratory judgment, breach of an unwritten contract, unjust enrichment, constructive trust, resulting trust, negligence, actual and constructive fraud, conversion and prima facie tort. Those counterclaims were eventually dismissed, but reasserted in this case by Miller in against Zandi in 2023 — well after the expiration of the two and three year statutes of limitation on all claims which began to accrue when she could have first maintained her claims to a successful conclusion in 2008, or 2014 at the latest. The trial court properly granted Zandi’s motion to dismiss based on the expiration of the statutes of limitation. AFFIRMED. Opinion by MITCHELL, P.J.; GOREE, J., and DOWNING, J., concur. July 8, 2024
121,805 – In the Matter of: A.R.G., I.J.G., J.F.G., R.M.G., and K.D.G., Alleged Deprived Children, Sierra Nicole Contreras, Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Beckham County, Oklahoma. Honorable Michelle Kirby Roper, Trial Judge. Sierra Nicole Contreras (Mother) appeals the trial court’s Order filed October 31, 2023 terminating her parental rights as to A.R.G., I.J.G., J.F.G., R.M.G., and K.D.G. We have reviewed the record and are not persuaded by Mother’s arguments. Clear and convincing evidence supports termination. We affirm. Opinion by DOWNING, J.; MITCHELL, P.J., and GOREE, J., concur. July 9, 2024
Division IV
120,997 – Patrick O. Sparkman, an individual, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Larry Scooter Proctor, a/k/a Scooter Proctor, an individual, and Blue October, LLC, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Cleveland County, Hon. Leah Edwards, Trial Judge. Patrick O. Sparkman (Plaintiff) appeals the trial court’s order denying his application for attorney fees and costs against Larry Scooter Proctor, a/k/a Scooter Proctor, and Blue October, LLC in this breach of contract action. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the part of the order declining to award Plaintiff attorney fees but reverse the part of the order declining to award Plaintiff costs. We remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with our Opinion. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, J.; HUBER, P.J., and BLACKWELL, J., concur. July 3, 2024
121,982 – Adam James Seikel, Plaintiff/Appellee, vs. State of Oklahoma ex rel. Service Oklahoma, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Martha Oakes, Trial Judge. Defendant, State of Oklahoma ex rel. Service Oklahoma, appeals the district court’s Final Order setting aside the revocation of the driving privileges of plaintiff, Adam Seikel. We find the Officer’s Affidavit complied with the statutory prerequisites for revocation of driving privileges. We conclude the district court erred in setting aside the revocation order and, therefore, reverse the district court’s Final Order and remand for further proceeding consistent with this Opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HUBER, P.J.; HIXON, J., and BLACKWELL, J., concur. July 3, 2024
120,950 – In re the Marriage of: David Lynn Pittman, Petitioner/Appellant, vs. Dawn Marie Pittman, Respondent/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Major County, Hon. Timothy D. Haworth, Trial Judge. David Lynn Pittman (Husband) appeals the trial court’s Amended Order Pursuant to Mandate. The primary issue is whether the trial court erred on remand by not holding an evidentiary hearing on the issues of post-divorce mineral proceeds Wife allegedly received from third parties and Husband’s alleged overpayment of child support during the pendency of the first appeal in this case. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we reverse the provisions in the order related to such issues and other certain issues with the order specifically addressed below. We affirm the order in all other respects. Accordingly, we remand this case for further proceedings consistent with our Opinion. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, J.; HUBER, P.J., concurs, and BLACKWELL, J., concurs in part and dissents in part. July 9, 2024