Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | July 16, 2025
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
Division II
122,129 – Silverhawk Homeowners Association, Inc., Plaintiff/Appellee, vs. Adewale Eniola Tawose, an individual, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Sheila Stinson, District Judge. Adewale Tawose appeals a trial court order finding that the plaintiff, Silverhawk Homeowners Association, Inc. (Silverhawk), was entitled to declaratory judgment and an injunction and that Tawose’s use of his property constituted a nuisance. Tawose also appeals the court’s order denying his motion for new trial. Based on this Court’s recent holding in Graham v. Reynolds, 2024 OK CIV APP 26, 560 P.3d 51, we find that Silverhawk was not entitled to declaratory judgment or an injunction and thereby reverse that portion of the court’s judgment, as well as that portion of the court’s order declaring Silverhawk the prevailing party for fee purposes. That portion of the court’s order determining that Tawose’s use of the property constituted a nuisance pursuant to the declaration or other law is vacated and the matter is remanded for the sole purpose of determining whether Tawose’s use constituted a nuisance other than via the alleged violation of the declaration. REVERSED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II by BLACKWELL, J.; WISEMAN, P.J., concurs, and FISCHER, J., dissents. July 14, 2025
122,801 – The Mattingly Law Firm, P.C., Plaintiff, vs. Melvin D. Henson, Jr. aka Dee Henson, Defendant, Security State Bank of Wewoka, an Oklahoma Banking Institution, Plaintiff/Appellee, vs Melvon Don Henson s/p/a Melvin Don Henson, Jr. s/p/a Dee Henson, Annette Denise Henson, Estate of Mildred Mae Henson s/p/a Mildred M. Henson, deceased and Henson Insurance Group, LLC, Defendants/Appellants, and Lisa Turpin; Seminole County Treasurer; The Board of County Commissioners of Seminole County; First National Bank and Trust Company of Oklahoma, individually and as successor in interest of First National Bank of Wewoka; The United States of America ex rel. Internal Revenue Service; The State of Oklahoma ex rel. The Oklahoma Tax Commission; The State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Employment Security Commission; The Mattingly Law Firm, P.C.; Greener Pastures Enterprises, LLC; American Collections Services, Inc.; and Swearingen Funeral Home, Defendants, and Maverick Energy Services, LLC, Third Party Intervenor. Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Seminole County, Hon. Steven Kessinger, District Judge. Defendants Melvin Don Henson, Annette Denise Henson, the Estate of Mildred Mae Henson, and the Henson Insurance Group appeal the court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff, Security State Bank of Wewoka in this foreclosure action, as well as the denial of the Hensons’ motion for new trial. Upon review, we find that the court properly granted summary judgment in the bank’s favor and rejected the Hensons’ motion for new trial. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II by BLACKWELL, J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. July 14, 2025
Division III
122,206 – In Re the Marriage of: Maysaa Alchami, Petitioner/Appellee, v. Fawaz Alchami, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable April Seibert, Trial Judge. In this dissolution of marriage proceeding, Respondent/Appellant, Fawaz Alchami (Husband), appeals from the district court’s dissolution of marriage decree valuing and awarding Petitioner/Appellee, Maysaa Alchami (Wife), real and personal property, a judgment for unpaid temporary support alimony and a judgment for sales proceeds. Husband also appeals from the district court’s holding that the parties’ Syrian Marriage Certificate (Certificate) is not a valid and enforceable prenuptial agreement which bars Wife from recovering an amount greater than the deferred dower amount specified in the Certificate. On appeal, Husband claims that in the event of a divorce, Wife agreed, under the Certificate, to the deferred dower amount; therefore, Wife was barred from claiming support alimony and an equitable distribution of marital property. This Court holds the district court properly exercised subject matter jurisdiction and applied Oklahoma law when it determined the Certificate was not a valid and enforceable prenuptial agreement. This Court further holds the district court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded Wife a judgment for unpaid temporary support alimony and sales proceeds, and when it valued and awarded the parties’ an equitable share of the marital property. The district court’s decree is AFFIRMED. Opinion by BELL, C.J.; MITCHELL, J., concurs, and DOWNING, P.J., concurs in result. July 11, 2025
122,283 – In the Matter of the Adoption of M.R.P., a minor child: Michael Phillips, Respondent/Appellant, v. Christopher Hampton and Danielle Hampton, petitioners/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Kurt G. Glassco, Trial Judge. Respondent/Appellant Michael Phillips (Phillips) is the putative father of M.R.P., a minor child born on August 3, 2023. Phillips executed an extrajudicial consent the day after M.R.P.’s birth waiving any legal interest or rights to the child and consenting to her adoption. Soon after, but outside of the fifteen-day window allowed by statute, Phillips sought to withdraw his extrajudicial consent, claiming he signed under duress. It also came to light that the form Phillips executed did not include the statutorily-required statement that Phillips was represented by counsel or had waived the right to counsel. After a hearing, the court denied Phillips’ motion. It made no findings as to Phillips’ claim that he signed under duress, but the court found the form Phillips executed was in substantial compliance with the statute because he had knowledge an attorney had been retained for him but chose not to consult with the lawyer. We find the court erred as a matter of law. “Where performance of statutory requirements is mandatory, there can be no ‘substantial compliance’ except in accordance with the particular provision.” Barnes v. Transok Pipeline Co., 1976 OK 27, ¶15, 549 P.2d 819, 822. Accordingly, we REVERSE AND REMAND WITH INSTRUCTIONS to vacate the court’s order denying Phillips’ motion and to enter an order acknowledging that Phillips’ extrajudicial consent is invalid as a matter of law. Opinion by MITCHELL, J.; BELL, C.J., and DOWNING, P.J., concur. July 11, 2025
122,036 – Shelia Humphrey and Dwayne Bryant, next of kin of Lester Bryant, Deceased, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Frank Sullivan, Jr., Defendant/Appellee, Conhold of Catoosa, LLC, d/b/a Rolling Hills Care Center, Comprehensive Management Services, Inc., SSLTC Reality, LLC, Tribex LTC, LCC, Kim Patton, APRN-CPN, and Jack Brown, MD, Other defendants. Appeal from the District Court of Rogers County, Oklahoma. Honorable Sue Nigh, Trial Judge. Appellants Shelia Humphrey and Dwayne Bryant appeal the trial court’s February 16, 2024 Order Granting Defendant Frank Sullivan, Jr.’s (Sullivan) Motion for Summary Judgment. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we AFFIRM. Opinion by DOWNING, P.J.; BELL, C.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. July 11, 2025
122,982 – Pride Energy Company, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Apache Corporation, Defendant/Appellant, Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation, P.F.Beeler LLC, Latigo Oil & Gas, Inc., and Hamil Oil & Gas LLC, Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of Beaver County, Oklahoma. Honorable Jon Parsley, Trial Judge. Both Pride Energy Company (Pride) and Apache Corporation (Apache) appeal the trial court’s decision granting in part and denying in part their respective competing motions for summary judgment. Apache also appeals the trial court’s denial of its Motion to Vacate and for New Trial. After review of the record, this Court concludes the trial court erred in part when it granted Pride’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Accordingly, the trial court’s order is AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED with instructions consistent with this Opinion.Opinion by DOWNING, P.J.; BELL, C.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. July 11, 2025
Division IV
121,553 – Thomas Johnson, Plaintiff/Appellee, vs. Prime Injury Care, LLC, Defendant/Appellant, and Oklahoma Hyperbaric, LLC, Additional Defendant/Appellee, and Accident Care & Treatment Center, Inc.; Southwest Regional Imaging & Radiology, LLC; Interventional Radiology Associates, LLC; and Chappell Clinic, Inc., d/b/a Spinal Care Associates, Additional Defendants and Parties in Interest. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Aletia Haynes Timmons, Trial Judge. Defendant, Prime Injury Care, LLC, (Prime Injury) appeals the trial court’s Order apportioning the settlement proceeds among Prime Injury and its co-defendant medical providers and extinguishing the defendants’ liens and claimed medical debt upon issuance of payment. After careful review of the appellate record and applicable law, we vacate the trial court’s decision extinguishing the co-defendant lienholders’ claims and outstanding medical debt owed after apportioning the settlement proceeds and extinguishing the liens. In all other respects, we affirm the trial court’s June 29, 2023 Order. The trial court’s June 29, 2023 Order is hereby affirmed in part and vacated in part. AFFIRMED IN PART AND VACATED IN PART. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HUBER, J.; HIXON, V.C.J., and BARNES, P.J., concur. July 9, 2025
122,306 (consol. w/ Case No. 122.362) – In the Matter of Z.N. and V.N. III, Alleged Deprived Children: Victor Nelson, Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Mark McCormick, Trial Judge. In this termination of parental rights proceeding, Appellant Victor Nelson (Father) and Appellant Nautica Railback Nelson (Mother) appeal from separate orders of the district court, entered upon a jury verdict, terminating their parental rights to the minor children involved herein. We conclude that Father’s due process rights were not violated because he was not provided a court-ordered treatment plan, and conclude State presented clear and convincing evidence that termination of his parental rights is in the best interest of Z.N. and V.N. We also conclude State presented clear and convincing evidence that Mother failed to correct the conditions of lack of proper parental care and guardianship and threat of harm, and that termination of Mother’s parental rights is in the best interest of R.N., Z.N. and V.N. We further conclude Mother was not denied her due process right to a fair trial. Consequently, the trial court did not err in entering its respective orders upon the jury’s verdict terminating Mother’s and Father’s parental rights. Accordingly, we affirm the order terminating Father’s parental rights to Z.N. and V.N., and the order terminating Mother’s parental rights to R.N., Z.N., and V.N. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by BARNES, P.J; HIXON, V.C.J., and HUBER, J., concur. July 10, 2025
122,017 – In re the Construction of the Testamentary Trust Created in the Estate of Charles Hufnagel, Deceased, aka The Charles A. Hufnagel QTIP Trust, aka The Hufnagel QTIP Trust: Donnie Maberry, Appellant v. Michael Hufnagel, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Canadian County, Hon. Barbara Hatfield, Trial Judge. Donnie Maberry appeals from an Order and Supplemental Order of the district court filed in February 2024. Based on our review, we vacate those portions of the district court’s orders transferring certain royalties and mineral interests to Michael Hufnagel and Thomas Hufnagel. Without deciding on appeal the precise distribution of the royalties or mineral interests pursuant to the Trust, we direct the district court to order (1) that the royalties in question be repaid to the Trust for the Trustee to distribute consistent with the terms of the Trust, and (2) that the Trustee distribute the mineral interests in question consistent with the Trust, all in a manner consistent with this Opinion. VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by BARNES, P.J.; HUBER, J., and FISCHER, J., sitting by designation, concur. July 11, 2025
121,946 (Companion to Case No. 121,947) – Jose Garcia, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Raymond Turner, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. M. Brooke Holman, Trial Judge. In this forcible entry and detainer action, Defendant (Mr. Turner) argues on appeal that the district court violated his due process rights because the court did not allow his counsel to participate in a manner that allowed Mr. Turner a reasonable chance to present claims or defenses. We reject this argument because our review of the record reveals, among other things, that counsel for Mr. Turner was allowed to fully participate at the hearing and make all his objections and arguments. Mr. Turner also argues the district court’s order is void as a result of vagueness or uncertainty, but we conclude this argument lacks merit and that the order has not been shown to be void. Consequently, 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. July 15, 2025
121,947 (Companion to Case No. 121,946) – Jose Garcia, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Raymond Turner, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. M. Brooke Holman, Trial Judge. In this forcible entry and detainer action, Defendant (Mr. Turner) argues on appeal that the district court violated his due process rights because the court did not allow his counsel to participate in a manner that allowed Mr. Turner a reasonable chance to present claims or defenses. We reject this argument because our review of the record reveals, among other things, that counsel for Mr. Turner was allowed to fully participate at the hearing and make all his objections and arguments. Mr. Turner also argues the district court’s order is void as a result of vagueness or uncertainty, but we conclude this argument lacks merit and that the order has not been shown to be void. Consequently, 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. July 15, 2025