Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | July 22, 2026
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
123,001 – Landmark Pools and More, LLC, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Farshid Adam-Amir Zandi, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Tracy L. Priddy, Trial Judge. Defendant/Appellant Farshid Adam-Amir Zandi appeals from the trial court’s orders denying Zandi’s motion to vacate a default judgment and awarding prevailing party attorney fees to Plaintiff/Appellee Landmark Pools and More, LLC. Landmark filed this breach of contract action alleging Zandi failed to pay Landmark for building a pool. The trial court entered default judgment against Zandi after he failed to appear at depositions or at the pre-trial conference. Zandi also failed to respond to Landmark’s application for fees. We find no abuse of discretion and affirm. Opinion by SWINTON, P.J.; BELL, J., concurs and GOREE, J., dissents. July 17, 2026
Division II
122,390 – Jay M. Carter, Jr. and Amanda Carter, Petitioners/Appellees, vs. Katie Leak, Respondent/Appellant. Proceeding to review an Order of the District Court of Pittsburg County, Hon. Mindy Beare, Trial Judge. Katie Leak (Mother) appeals the district court’s order awarding visitation with her minor child, A.C., to his paternal grandparents, Jay M. Carter Jr. and Amanda Carter (Grandparents). Because they failed to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that A.C. would suffer harm or potential harm without granting them visitation rights, the district court erred by awarding grandparental visitation. The district court’s order is therefore reversed. REVERSED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II by FISCHER, J.; HIXON, C.J., concurs, and WISEMAN, P.J., concurs in result. July 20, 2026
Division III
Division IV
122,819 – Nathan Speer, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. SK609, LLC, d/b/a Kalidy Kia, Sabih Kalidy, and Communication Federal Credit Union, Defendants/Appellees. Proceeding to review an Order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Don Andrews, District Judge. Nathan Speer appeals the trial court’s order granting the defendants’, SK609, LLC, d/b/a Kaildy Kia and Sabih Kalidy (collectively, Kalidy defendants), motion to compel arbitration. Upon review, we find that the arbitration agreement at issue in this case was valid and enforceable, and that Mr. Speer was not fraudulently induced into signing it. Accordingly, the court’s order compelling arbitration is affirmed. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by BLACKWELL, P.J.; BARNES, J., and HUBER, J., concur. July 15, 2026
123,137 – Alexis Atkison, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Jacob A. Deckard, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. M. Brooke Holman, Trial Judge. In this small claims proceeding, Jacob A. Deckard appeals from an order of the trial court overruling his motion to vacate a garnishment and to modify and release the court’s judgment awarding $10,431.33 to Alexis Atkison on a debt. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mr. Deckard’s motion to vacate the judgment for irregularities in obtaining that judgment based on circumstances that occurred after the judgment was rendered and in awarding Ms. Atkison $10,431.33. We further conclude, based on the record provided on appeal, that the trial court did not err in overruling Mr. Deckard’s motion to vacate the garnishment for irregularities in the issuance of the garnishment and in determining that his motion is not the proper proceeding to pursue the remedy he seeks. Accordingly, we affirm the order. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by BARNES, J.; BLACKWELL, P.J., and HUBER, J., concur. July 16, 2026
123,249 – In re the Marriage of: Pete Louis Bonicelli, Jr., Petitioner/Appellant, v. Julie Alice Bonicelli, Respondent/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Pottawatomie County, Hon. Emily Mueller, Trial Judge. Pete Louis Bonicelli, Jr. (Husband), seeks review of the district court’s Decree of Dissolution. Husband asserts on appeal that the court abused its discretion in ordering him to pay support alimony to Julie Alice Bonicelli (Wife) in the amount of $60,000. Upon our review of all the facts and circumstances, including Wife’s demonstrated need and Husband’s ability to pay, we conclude the court’s award of support alimony is not clearly contrary to the weight of the evidence and does not constitute an abuse of its discretion. Therefore, we affirm the Decree of Dissolution. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by BARNES, P.; BLACKWELL, P.J., and HUBER, J., concur. July 20, 2026