Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | July 13, 2022

Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals

Division III

119,600 – Bryan C. Lewis, Petitioner/Appellee vs. Jennifer Scavo, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Osage County, Oklahoma.  Honorable Cindy A. Pickerill, Trial Judge. Respondent/Appellant Jennifer Scavo appeals from the trial court’s order denying her motion for new trial filed after the trial court granted a protective order to Petitioner/Appellee Bryan C. Lewis, finding he was a victim of domestic abuse, harassment, or stalking. The approved narrative statement supports a finding that Scavo harassed or stalked Lewis.  The narrative statement does not indicate that Scavo testified, offered exhibits, or objected to Lewis’s testimony and exhibits. Scavo therefore has not presented a record showing the trial court abused its discretion in granting the protective order or in denying her motion for a new trial. However, the narrative statement does not support a finding the parties were intimate partners as defined by statute; additionally the narrative statement expressly provides that Lewis did not testify that Scavo presented a threat to his physical safety.  We therefore find the trial court abused its discretion in checking box C(2) on the form for the final Order of Protection. We AFFIRM the Order of Protection on the basis of harassment or stalking, but we REMAND with directions to enter a corrected order checking box C(1) instead of box C(2). Opinion by SWINTON, J.; MITCHELL, V.C.J., and PRINCE, P.J., CONCUR. July 8, 2022

120,121– Jennifer Furr, Plaintiff/Appellee, vs. Park Ivy Consultants, Inc., an Arkansas corporation, Brenda Frederiksen and Jerry Frederiksen, Defendants/Appellants, and PWWL Centers, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Vici Wellness, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company, Third-Party Defendant. Appeal from the District Court of Delaware County, Oklahoma.  Honorable David Crutchfield, Trial Judge. The controversy before the Court is whether Appellee/Plaintiff, Jennifer Furr, presented sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s Order granting the Emergency Motion for Appointment of a Receiver.  Crucially, no record exists of the evidentiary hearing in which the trial court granted the receivership, and Appellant did not take remedial steps to preserve a record of that hearing for appeal.  Accordingly, Appellant has not met its burden of providing an adequate record on appeal, and, absent an adequate record, we presume the trial court’s decision to appoint a receiver over Appellant’s business operations was responsive to the proof presented at that hearing.  Thus, the trial court’s Order is affirmed. Opinion by PRINCE, P.J.; MITCHELL, V.C.J., and SWINTON, J., CONCUR. July 8, 2022

120,399 – Tina Ennis, individually; Jill Lopez, individually; and Kathryn Jones, individually, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Duncan Regional Hospital, Inc., formerly Duncan Physicians and Surgeons Hospital, Defendant/Appellee, and The Estate of R.D. Taylor, M.D.; The Estate of William Randolph Cheatwood, M.D.; John and Jane Does and Unknown Nursing Staff, Employees and Personnel of Duncan Regional Hospital, Inc., formerly Duncan Physicians and Surgeons Hospital, Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of Stephens County, Oklahoma.  Honorable G. Brent Russell, Trial Judge. Tina Ennis, Jill Lopez, and Kathryn Jones (“Ennis”, “Lopez”, “Jones”, or collectively, “Plaintiffs”) appeal a Journal Entry of Judgment granting summary judgment in favor of Duncan Regional Hospital, Inc. (“DRH”).  Ennis and Lopez were born on or about May 18, 1964.  They alleged that they were switched at birth and, as a direct result of the actions of hospital staff, were not raised by their biological parents.  Ennis and Lopez were born at Duncan Physicians and Surgeons Hospital (“DPSH”).  DPSH no longer exists.  DRH was formed in 1976 and was sued by Plaintiffs for conduct that occurred at DPSH.  Plaintiffs asserted that DRH, as the alleged successor of DPSH, is legally responsible for the liabilities of DPSH.  We find that the undisputed facts demonstrate that DRH was a new entity that, when created, was not a mere continuation of DPSH and also that it did not assume the liabilities of DPSH when DRH purchased the assets of DPSH.  We, therefore, AFFIRM the trial court’s award of summary judgment in favor of DRH. Opinion by PRINCE, P.J.; MITCHELL, V.C.J., and BELL, P.J. (sitting by designation), CONCUR. July 8, 2022

120,010 – In the Matter of O.J., Child Adjudicated as Deprived. Tyler Jones, Natural Father, Respondent/Appellant, v. The State of Oklahoma, Petitioner/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma.  Honorable Theresa Dreiling, Trial Judge. Appellant, Tyler Jones (“Father”), appeals the jury decision terminating his parental rights as to the minor child, O.J.  The State moved for emergency custody due to several opioids, benzodiazepine, and marijuana being found in the minor child’s system at birth, and O.J. was removed from the custody of his parents.  O.J. was then adjudicated as deprived.  The State subsequently moved for termination of Father’s parental rights.  After a two day trial, the jury unanimously found that, based on clear and convincing evidence, termination of Father’s parental rights was in the best interest of the child, in part, because Father had failed to correct conditions leading to O.J. being adjudicated deprived.  We have reviewed the record and applicable law and find that the order of the trial court is supported by clear and convincing evidence.  The order terminating Father’s parental rights as to O.J. is AFFIRMED. Opinion by PRINCE, P.J.; MITCHELL, V.C.J., and SWINTON, J., CONCUR. July 11, 2022