Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | July 15, 2026
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
Division II
122,257 – Andranette Boyd, Plaintiff/Appellee, vs. Jefferson Edwards, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Honorable Sarah Murphy Bondurant, Trial Judge. Jefferson Edwards appeals the trial court’s denial of both his motion to vacate and his motion for new trial arising out of the issuance of a protective order. After review, we reverse and vacate the protective order in question. REVERSED AND VACATED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; FISCHER, J., concurs, and BLACKWELL, J., dissents. July 8, 2026
122,145 – Sharon A. Rifai, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Bob Carter, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Margaret Briggs, Deceased, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of LeFlore County, Honorable Jonathan Sullivan, Trial Judge. Plaintiff appeals a judgment in favor of Defendant entered on a jury verdict in this auto negligence case. After review, we reverse and remand with directions. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; FISCHER, J., concurs, and BLACKWELL, J., dissents. July 9, 2026
123,050 — Peak Equity Group, LLC, and High Peaks Financial, LLC, Plaintiffs/Appellees, vs. Luther Masdon and All Occupants, Defendants, and David Nguyen and Wynn Wynn Solutions, LLC, Putative Intervenors/Appellants. Appeal from the District Court of Cleveland County, Hon. Thad Balkman, Trial Judge. Wynn Wynn Solutions, LLC (WWS) and David Nguyen (D.N.) appeal an Order Denying Motion to Intervene entered in an ejectment action filed in Cleveland County, Oklahoma. High Peaks Financial and Peak Equity Group (collectively “Peak”) originally filed this action as a forcible entry and detainer (FED). D.N. and WWS moved to intervene as a matter of right in this impending ejectment action, based on their claimed interest in the property at issue. The trial court denied the motion as premature without prejudice to reasserting the motion after mandate in a separate foreclosure action, which disposed of WWS and D.N.’s interest in the property. Since that time, another division of COCA has affirmed the trial court’s judgment in the foreclosure action, and D.N. and WWS’s Petition for Certiorari remains pending. Based on the record on appeal, we find D.N. and WWS were entitled to intervene as a matter of right in the ejectment action to assert and protect their claimed interest in the subject property. We reverse and remand with directions to allow D.N. and WWS to intervene. Our holding does not disturb the trial court’s stay pending resolution of Case No. 122,407, or the trial court’s power to consider and rule upon any objection to D.N. and WWS’s proposed counterclaims or alleged attempts to expand the scope of the litigation. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by HIXON, C.J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and FISCHER, J., concur.
July 13, 2026
Division III
Division IV