Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | June 10, 2026
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
122,847 – In re the Marriage of: Michael E. Bewnnett, Petitioner/Counter-Respondent/Appellee, v. Malarie M. Bennett, Respondent/Counter-Claimant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Pottawatomie County, Oklahoma. Honorable Emily J. Mueller, Trial Judge. Respondent/Counterclaimant/Appellant Malarie M. Bennett (Wife) appeals the custody and child support provisions in the decree of dissolution entered in the divorce proceeding between Wife and Petitioner/Counter-Respondent/Appellee Michael E. Bennett (Husband). The decree granted joint custody and named Husband the primary decision maker for the children, ordered Husband to pay child support and support alimony, and divided the marital property. Following the minute order but before the decree, Wife unsuccessfully sought a new trial, arguing Husband had concealed assets which impacted his credibility. On appeal, Wife argues the trial court erred in making Husband the primary decision maker, in calculating child support, and in denying her request for a new trial. Wife also argues the trial court demonstrated bias against her. We have reviewed the record in its entirety and find the trial court’s decision to make Husband the primary decision maker is not against the clear weight of the evidence or contrary to law. We further find no abuse of discretion in the denial of Wife’s motion for new trial. Nor do we find the trial court showed bias against Wife. However, because Husband’s income exceeds the maximum amount set by the child support guidelines, the trial court erred in awarding child support based on the maximum guidelines income alone. We therefore reverse the child support computation and remand for recalculation of child support, taking into account Husband’s income as well as the children’s needs and standard of living. We affirm the remainder of the decree. Opinion by SWINTON, P.J.; BELL, J., and GOREE, J., concur. June 4, 2026
123,708 – In the Matter of the Adoption of K.X.P.H., Brianna Darlene Leigh Johnson and Joseph Adam Johnson, Petitioners/Appellees, v. Martha J. Helton, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Comanche County, Oklahoma. Honorable Lisa Shaw, Trial Judge. In this adoption proceeding filed by Petitioners/Appellees, Brianna Darlene Leigh Johnson and Joseph Adam Johnson, wife and husband, (the Guardian of the minor child and her husband), Respondent/Appellant, Martha J. Helton, the biological mother of the minor child (Mother), appeals from the trial court’s order determining the minor child, K.X.P.H., born May 30, 2020, eligible for adoption without Mother’s consent. The court determined Mother’s consent was unnecessary under 10 O.S. 2021 §7505-4.1 and §7505-4.2(B) and (G) because Mother willfully failed, refused or neglected to contribute to the support of the minor child in accordance with a support order or Mother’s financial ability to contribute to the minor’s support and Mother abandoned the child for a period of twelve (12) consecutive months out of the last fourteen (14) months immediately preceding the filing of the petition for adoption. On appeal, Mother argues the trial court erred in finding her consent was unnecessary because Mother has a fundamental right to raise her child and she was unable to contact the child due to her incarceration and addiction to methamphetamine. After de novo review of the record, we affirm. Opinion by BELL, J.; GOREE, J., and SWINTON, P.J. concur. June 4, 2026
Division II
122,452 – Andrea Elizabeth Murphy, Petitioner/Appellee, vs. Ryan Michael Murphy, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Pottawatomie County, Honorable Tracy McDaniel, Trial Judge. Ryan Murphy appeals a trial court order which imposes a final protective order against him. After review, we find the order is deficient on its face. We conclude the trial court erred as a matter of law when it issued a final protective order without making requisite findings as to whether the events in question involved domestic abuse and/or stalking of an intimate partner or child and whether Ryan represented a credible threat to Andrea’s safety. We reverse the order of the trial court granting a final protective order because the trial court failed to make findings required by law. REVERSED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; HIXON, C.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. June 3, 2026
122,766 – The Charles M. Godard Trust and The Mason Living Trust, Plaintiffs/ Appellants, vs. Ryan Michael Morris and Amanda Dawn Elliott Morris, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of McClain County, Honorable Charles Gray, Trial Judge. Plaintiffs appeal the trial court’s judgment entered in favor of Defendants in this quiet title action. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we see no error in the judgment entered by the trial court, and we affirm pursuant to Oklahoma Supreme Court Rule 1.202(d), 12 O.S.2021, ch. 15, app. 1. SUMMARILY AFFIRMED UNDER RULE 1.202(d). Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; HIXON, C.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. June 3, 2026
122,886 (Consolidated with Case No. 122,888) – Shelia Dale, Petitioner/Appellant, vs. Gared Dale, Respondent/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Choctaw County, Hon. Bill J. Baze, Trial Judge. Shelia Dale (Wife) appeals the trial court’s Decree of Dissolution of Marriage entered in Choctaw County. Wife asserts that the trial court erred in its designation of certain properties as marital and others as separate. Further, Wife asserts that the trial court erred in its valuation of various items of marital property. Gared Dale (Husband) counterappeals. Husband asserts that the trial court erred in dividing the marital estate, claiming that the valuation of various real and personal properties was contrary to the evidence and inequitable. Husband also asserts that the trial court erred in undervaluing the amount that it charged Wife against the marital estate for her collection of certain cell tower lease payments. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and affirm the trial court’s Decree of Dissolution of Marriage in its entirety. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by HIXON, C.J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. June 3, 2026
123,058 – MidFirst Bank, Plaintiff/Appellee, vs. Gabaryaahla Israel and Akiva Israel, Defendants/Appellants, and Gabaryaahla and Akiva Israel Estate; First Fidelity Bank NA; Cross River Bank; Midland Funding, LLC; Morgan Res, LLC; United States of America ex rel. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of Canadian County, Honorable Paul Hesse, Trial Judge. Appellants appeal a trial court order granting summary judgment in favor of MidFirst Bank in this foreclosure action. After reviewing the record and applicable law, we conclude that the trial court’s findings as to undisputed facts and its conclusions of law set forth in the journal entry of judgment are supported by the evidentiary materials MidFirst submitted and as a matter of law. Because the trial court’s journal entry of judgment fully explains its decision and is supported by both the undisputed facts and the law, we summarily affirm the trial court’s judgment pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 1.202(d). AFFIRMED UNDER RULE 1.202(d). Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; HIXON, C.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. June 8, 2026
122,657 – In re the Marriage of: Uri Henderson Lavi, Petitioner/Appellee, vs. Tania Nejad-Khalil Lavi, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Honorable Lisa K. Hammond, Trial Judge. Mother appeals an order of the trial court granting Father’s motion for attorney fees and costs related to the remanded child support issue. After review, we affirm the trial court’s order finding Father is entitled to attorney fees, but we must reverse the trial court’s decision as to the amount of those fees and remand for redetermination. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; HIXON, C.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. June 9, 2026
Division III
Division IV
123,019 – Charles Patrick Hankins, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Naomi Ruth Hankins, Defendant/Appellee. Plaintiff, Charles Hankins, (Husband) appeals a district court order sustaining a Motion to Vacate Final Order of Protection filed by defendant, Naomi Ruth Hankins, (Wife) and thereby vacating the final victim protection order issued against Wife on behalf of Husband. The district court erred in sustaining Wife’s motion to vacate and thereby vacating the final Order of Protection. We reverse the district court’s Order Vacating Final Order of Victim Protection and remand to the district court with instructions to reinstate the original final Order of Protection entered in Canadian County, Oklahoma. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HUBER, J.; BLACKWELL, P.J., and BARNES, J., concur. June 4, 2026
122,722 – Kristi Dawn Smith, Plaitiff/Appellant, vs. Lisa Diane McArthur, as Trustee of the Donna Sue Wiley Revocable Living Trust Dated June 19, 2023; and Lisa Diane McArthur, Individually, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff/Appellee, Jemme Charla Dedmon, Personal Representative of the Estate of Donna Sue Wiley, Third-Party Plaintiff/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Cleveland County, Hon. Jeff Virgin, Trial Judge. Plaintiff/appellant Kristi Dawn Smith (Smith) appeals an order denying Smith’s Verified Application for Preliminary Injunction to Remove McArthur and Dedmon as Successor Trustee of DSW 23.2 and Grant Suit Money to Plaintiff. As a result of the hostile relationship between Smith, McArthur, and Dedmon, and the conflict that exists in McArthur serving as both trustee and contingent beneficiary, we find that the district court abused its discretion in failing to remove McArthur and Dedmon as trustees. Further, to the extent the district court’s order denied Smith’s request for suit money, we affirm, as the record was void of any evidence to support Smith’s requested relief. We therefore affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions for the district court to appoint a neutral, third party to serve as trustee. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HUBER, J.; BLACKWELL, P.J., and BARNES, J., concur. June 9, 2026