Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | July 8, 2026
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
123,338 – Stephanie Elizabeth Lackey, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Gary Wayne Hink, Defendant/Appellant, and Sheryl Hink, a/k/a Cheryl Hink, et al., Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of Coal County, Honorable Preston Harbuck, Judge. Defendant/Appellant, Gary Wayne Hink, appeals from the trial court’s order denying his motion to vacate a default judgment entered in favor of Plaintiff/Appellee, Stephanie Elizabeth Lackey, in her suit to quiet title to property. The pleadings and arguments of counsel reveal that, in 1974, Defendant’s parents, Garland and Juanita Hink, purchased five acres of land and filed their joint tenancy warranty deed of record. Garland died in 1987. Juanita died intestate in 2002, leaving behind three children: Defendant, Sheryl, and Rodney. Around 2017, Plaintiff began renting the subject property and remitting payments to Sheryl. Rodney died in 2021. When Sheryl died, Defendant unsuccessfully tried to collect rent from Plaintiff, who thereafter filed the underlying action on November 19, 2024. Plaintiff’s petition sought to (1) judicially determine Garland’s death in order to terminate his joint tenancy interest, (2) judicially determine the deaths and heirs of Juanita and Rodney, and (3) quiet title against Defendant, Sheryl and the unknown heirs of Juanita and Rodney. Plaintiff claimed in her petition that she “is the owner of and is in actual and peaceable possession of” the subject property. Her sole claim to ownership is her possession of the property under 12 O.S. 2021 §1141(A). It is undisputed Defendant was properly served with the suit. Defendant maintains he contacted an Ada law firm that agreed, but failed, to represent him in the action. On January 16, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment, which was granted the same day. On February 13, 2025, Defendant timely moved to vacate the default judgment. Following a hearing, the trial court denied Defendant’s motion to vacate. We hold the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion. We also note that mere possession of property is insufficient to support the underlying quiet title judgment. Section 1141(A), combined with her possession, supports Plaintiff’s right to bring a quiet title action. However, §1141 in no way provides Plaintiff with a substantive remedy. Plaintiff has asserted no legally cognizable theory as to how she became the owner of the subject property under Oklahoma law. REVERSED. Opinion by BELL, J.; SWINTON, P.J., and GOREE, J., concur. July 2, 2026
123,726 – Efrain Romero, an individual, and Tarahumara’s Café & Cantina, LLC, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Woodsco Investments, LLC. Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Cleveland County. Honorable Michael Tupper, Judge. Plaintiffs/Appellants, Efrain Romero and Tarahumara’s Café & Cantina, LLC (collectively Tenant), appeal from the trial court’s dismissal, with prejudice, of their equitable claims against Defendant/Appellee, Woodsco Investments, LLC (Landlord). The parties entered into a three-year Lease Contract in 2001 for a Norman building in which Tenant owns and operates a Mexican restaurant. The parties thereafter executed lease extensions three times: through July 14, 2007; through January 14, 2014; and through February 14, 2018. All extensions were entered into by the parties on the same terms and conditions as in the original Lease except as specifically modified by the extensions. After the expiration of the final extension, the tenancy became month-to-month under the same terms and conditions of the Lease and extensions. Tenant sued and asserted claims for an equitable ownership interest in Landlord’s real property for alleged improvements, repairs or maintenance made by Tenant over a twenty-four (24) year period. Alternatively, Tenant sought damages for unjust enrichment for said improvements. Upon de novo review, we hold Tenant can prove no set of facts in support of either of its claims for relief. Both of Tenant’s causes of action sound in equity. Under Oklahoma law, a plaintiff may not pursue an equitable remedy when the plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law. The Lease Contract in this case provides Tenant with an adequate remedy at law. Further, the Lease Contract and extensions contain no agreement, either expressed or implied, for Tenant to obtain any interest in Landlord’s property. Tenant’s claims were correctly dismissed with prejudice because they cannot be remedied. 12 O.S. 2021 §2012(G). In reaching the above conclusion, we specifically reject Tenant’s assertion that the parties were no longer bound by the Lease and extensions after February 14, 2018. The Lease specifically contemplates a month-to-month tenancy in the event the lease term ends, Tenant maintains possession of the premises and Landlord accepts rent therefor. Tenant is estopped from denying the validity of the lease pursuant to Oklahoma caselaw. Further, 41 O.S. 2021 §35 states, “If a lessee of real property remains in possession thereof, after the expiration of the lease and the lessor accepts rent from him, the parties are presumed to have renewed the lease on the same terms . . . .” The contract terms continued in effect after the third extension period ended. Finally, pursuant to 60 O.S. 2021 §334 Tenant’s claims fail. Under either the Lease terms or §334, Tenant has no valid claim to ownership of improvements it made to Landlord’s property. AFFIRMED. Opinion by BELL, J.; SWINTON, P.J., concurs and GOREE, J., dissents. July 2, 2026
122,827 – J. Doe, a minor child, by and through their mother, Jane Doe, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Lindel Fields, an individual and in his official capacity as State Superintendent of Public Instruction and Chair of the Oklahoma State Board of Education: Christopher Van Denhende, Wes Nofire, Michael Tinney, Ryan Deatherage, and Brian Bobek, in their official capacities as members of the Oklahoma State Board of Education; and The Oklahoma State Department of Education, A State Executive Agency, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Cleveland County, Oklahoma. Honorable Michael Tupper, Trial Judge. Plaintiff/Appellant J. Doe, a minor child, by and through their mother, Jane Doe, appeals from summary judgment entered partially in favor of Doe and partially in favor of Defendants/Appellees Lindel Fields, in his official capacity as State Superintendent of Public Instruction and Chair of the Oklahoma State Board of Education (Superintendent); Christopher Van Dehende, Wes Nofire, Ryan Deatherage, Michael Tinney, and Brian Bobek, in their official capacities as members of the Oklahoma State Board of Education (collectively, Board); and the Oklahoma State Department of Education (OSDE) (collectively, Appellees). Doe’s request to change their gender designation in their local school records, pursuant to a court order, was denied by Board. Doe then filed this action challenging Board’s authority to make an administrative rule requiring local districts to seek Board approval to change a public school student’s gender designation and challenging Board’s denial of the requested change without due process. The trial court found Board had authority to make the rule but also that Board had denied Doe’s right to due process by denying Doe’s request to change their gender designation without notice. We affirm by summary opinion pursuant to Okl. Sup. Ct. Rule 1.202(d). Opinion by SWINTON, P.J.; BELL, J., and GOREE, J., concur. July 6, 2026
123,357 – In the Matter of the Estate of Frank Trimboli, Deceased. Charlene Garrison, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Frank Trimboli, Jr. and Rosemary Van Alstyne, Respondents. Appeal from the District of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Kurt G. Glassco, Trial Judge. Petitioner/Appellant Charlene Garrison appeals the trial court’s order denying admission of a will purporting to be the last will and testament of Frank Trimboli (Decedent). The order is not clearly against the weight of the evidence and we affirm. Opinion by SWINTON, P.J.; BELL, J., and GOREE, J., concur. July 7, 2026
Division II
122,553 – In re the Marriage of: Christopher Kondos, Petitioner/Appellee, vs. Lindsey Kondos, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Canadian County, Honorable Charles Gass, Trial Judge. Lindsey Kondos (Mother) appeals a decree of dissolution of marriage which, among other things not relevant to this appeal, awarded her sole custody of the parties’ minor children and required the parties to pay their own attorney fees. Mother asserts on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to make orders regarding domestic violence pursuant to 43 O.S. § 109.3, abused its discretion in requiring the parties to pay their own attorney fees in light of 43 O.S. § 112.6, and erred in including language regarding joint custody in the decree. Mother also asserts Christopher Kondos should be ordered to pay her attorney fees on appeal. After reviewing the record on appeal and applicable law, we affirm the award of attorney fees but reverse the provisions in the decree that conflict with the trial court’s award of sole custody to Mother, and we remand for the entry of a decree consistent with this Opinion. We deny Mother’s request for appeal-related attorney fees because she failed to comply with Oklahoma Supreme Court Rule 1.14. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; HIXON, C.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. July 1, 2026
122,875 – Butcher Optical I, P.C., an Oklahoma professional corporation; Butcher Optical II, P.C., an Oklahoma professional corporation; Butcher Optical III, Inc., an Oklahoma corporation, Petitioners/Appellees, and Dr. Jeff Butcher, an individual and Dr. Chris Butcher, an individual, Additional Petitioners, vs. Capstone Eyecare Holdings, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company, Garnishee/Appellants, and Capstone Eyecare Group of Oklahoma, an Oklahoma limited liability company, Respondent/Appellant, and Vision Equity Partners, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company; Patrick Murnan, an individual, and Cale Coulter, an individual, Additional Respondents. Capstone Eyecare Holdings, LLC (“Capstone Holdings”) appeals the district court’s judgment finding it liable to Butcher Optical I, Butcher Optical II, and Butcher Optical III (“Butcher Optical”) because it was indebted or in possession of funds belonging to its fully owned subsidiary and judgment debtor, Capstone Eyecare Group of Oklahoma (Capstone OK), in the amount of $504,725. Because Capstone Holdings fails to establish that the district court’s factual findings supporting the judgment were against the clear weight of the evidence presented at the hearing on the garnishment, the judgment is affirmed. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II by FISCHER, J.; HIXON, C.J., and WISEMAN, P.J., concur. July 2, 2026
122,747 – Mac Lee Brink, formerly, Dusty Lee Shipley, Plaintiff, vs. Emily Francine Thompson, Defendant, and Kelly Lynn, Appellant, vs. Honorable Sheila Stinson, Judge of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Honorable Sheila Stinson, Trial Judge. Kelly Lynn, an attorney licensed to practice in Oklahoma and a municipal judge, appeals an order of contempt and an order modifying the order of contempt. Lynn’s sole proposition of trial court error is the imposition of censure on him without giving him a clear warning that his conduct was impermissible or informing him that the court would impose specified sanctions if he repeated the conduct. After review of the record on appeal and applicable law, we affirm. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; HIXON, C.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. July 7, 2026
Division III
122,675 – In the Matter of: J.R.V., J.Y.V., & J.S.K., alleged deprived children, Jeree Scheuerman, Appellant, v. the State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Washita County, Oklahoma. Honorable S. Brooke Gatlin, Trial Judge. Jeree Scheuerman (Appellant) (“Mother”) appeals the Order Terminating Mother’s Parental Rights of J.R.V., J.Y.V., and J.S.K. following a jury trial. Mother contends on appeal that the State (Appellee) did not carry its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that: (1) termination served the best interest of the minor children; (2) Mother failed to correct the conditions which led to the minor children’s deprived adjudication; and (3) a substantial erosion of the parent/child relationship occurred due to Mother’s actions. Based upon our review of the record and relevant authority, we find the record contains substantial evidence supporting the jury’s verdict and the trial court’s subsequent Order to terminate Mother’s parental rights of the three minor children. We, therefore, AFFIRM. Opinion by PRINCE, V.C.J.; DOWNING, P.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. July 06, 2026
123,554 – Amber Denise Gray, Petitioner/Appellee, v. Harold Zane Gray, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Murray County, Oklahoma. Honorable Mark Melton, Trial Judge. This is an appeal from the district court’s Order Extending Protective Order entered pursuant to the Protection from Domestic Abuse Act in favor of Petitioner/Appellee Amber Denise Gray (Sister) against Defendant/Appellant Harold Zane Gray (Brother). Brother challenged the order on multiple grounds, including the propriety of service, the district court’s handling and advisement of judicial disqualification proceedings, the denial of discovery, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the judge’s refusal to recuse. On review, the Court of Civil Appeals concluded the appeal was moot because the ninety-day temporary protective order had expired by its own terms, the record contained no indication that a final protective order had been entered or the temporary protective order otherwise remained in effect, and no effective relief could be granted. Finding neither exception to the mootness doctrine applicable, the Court dismissed the appeal. Opinion by MITCHELL, J.; DOWNING, P.J., and PRINCE, V.C.J., concur. July 06, 2026
123,687 – Jimmy Lee West Revocable Trust Dated February 25, 2002, by Successor Trustee Paul Kallenberger, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Kyle Lee West, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Rebecca B. Nightingale, Trial Judge. Appellant Kyle West appeals the trial court’s filed November 25, 2025 Order denying his Motion for New Trial which Includes Precipitous Motion to Vacate Summary Judgment Order Awarding $157,000 in “Back Rent” and Motion for Remittitur. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we AFFIRM. Opinion by DOWNING, P.J.; PRINCE, V.C.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. July 07, 2026
Division IV
123,522 – Ronald Jones and Terry Jones, Co-Trustees of the RJC Trust dated January 28, 2003, as amended on February 16, 2012, Plaintiffs/Appellant, v. John Van Hook and Karen Jones, Defendants/Appellees. In this quiet title action, Ronald Jones appeals from the trial court’s Journal Entry of Judgment and Order Denying Motion to Vacate. Upon this Court’s review, it is apparent that no reversible error of law occurred and that the Judgment and Order adequately explain the trial court’s determinations. The Judgment and Order are affirmed under Oklahoma Supreme Court Rule 1.202(d), 12 O.S. 2021, ch. 15, app. 1. AFFIRMED UNDER RULE 1.202(d). Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by BARNES, J.; HUBER, J., and FISCHER, J. (sitting by designation), concur. July 2, 2026