Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | June 11, 2025
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
121,843 – Glesnore L. Doyle, Michael G. Taylor, Taylor Leigh Campbell and Juliette Hayden Clukey, Plaintiffs/Appellees v. Deborah L. Wayman and Kaitlyn Wayman, Defendants/Appellants and Ashley Flores, Defendant. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Kurt Glassco, Trial Judge. Defendants/Appellants Deborah Wayman and Kaitlyn Wayman (collectively, Defendants) appeal a judgment entered following a bench trial on Plaintiffs/Appellees Glesnore Doyle, Michael G. Taylor, Taylor Leigh Campbell, and Juliette Hayden Clukey (collectively, Plaintiffs) in their action against Defendants for cancellation of a deed, constructive trust, and unjust enrichment. The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the trial court adequately explain its decision and we affirm by summary opinion under Oklahoma Supreme Court Rule 1.202(d). Opinion by SWINTON, J.; GOREE, P.J., and PRINCE, J., concur. June 5, 2025
121,844 – In Re: The Treva L. Taylor Revocable Inter Vivos Trust, Glesnore L. Doyle, Michael G. Taylor, Taylor Leigh Campbell and Juliette Hayden Clukey, Petitioners/Counter-Respondents/Appellees, v. Deborah L. Waymen, Trustee of the Treva L. Taylor Revocable Inter Vivos Trust, Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Kurt Glassco, Trial Judge. Respondent/Counter-Claimant/Appellant Deborah Wayman appeals from judgment entered in favor of Petitioners/Counter-Respondents/Appellees Glesnore Doyle, Michael G. Taylor, Taylor Leigh Campbell, and Juliette Hayden Clukey (collectively, Petitioners) in their action against Wayman for an accounting, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of trust. The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the trial court are supported by the clear weight of the evidence and the law. We therefore affirm. Opinion by SWINTON, J.; GOREE, P.J., and PRINCE, J., concur. June 5, 2025
121,989 – In Re the Marriage of Christopher Scott Taylor, Petitioner/Appellee, v. Brooke Sue Dragich-Taylor, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Hughes County, Oklahoma. Honorable Brett Butner, Trial Judge. Brooke Dragich-Taylor (Mother/Appellant), seeks review of the Hughes County District Court’s order of January 18, 2024 modifying custody of the minor child, W.T., born in 2015, after a hearing upon Christopher Taylor’s (Father/Appellee) Motion to Modify Custody, Visitation, Child Support and Objection to Relocation, filed by Father on June 14, 2023. After the hearing held over two days on September 1, 2023 and September 21, 2023, the district court found it was in the best interests of W.T. to appoint Father the primary physical custodian of the child. Mother was accorded visitation pursuant to the District Court of Hughes County standard visitation schedule. Child support was modified. Mother’s request to relocate W.T. under 43 O.S. Supp.2008 §112.3 and Father’s objection to the relocation were found to be moot. For the reasons provided, we AFFIRM the appealed order of the district court. Opinion by GOREE, P.J.; SWINTON, J., and PRINCE, J., concur. June 5, 2025
121,996 – Jeffrey Clagg, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Tony Williams, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Kelly Greenough, Trial Judge. Plaintiff/Appellant Jeffrey Clagg appeals from a jury verdict in favor of Defendant/Appellee Tony Williams in a case stemming from a vehicle collision. Plaintiff argues that the trial court improperly denied his motion in limine, admitting evidence of a collateral source and hearsay evidence, that the verdict was inconsistent and not supported by the evidence, and that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of a sudden emergency. We affirm. Opinion by SWINTON, J.; GOREE, J., and PRINCE, J., concur. June 5, 2025
Division II
122,113 – Robert Booth, Jr., Plaintiff/Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma ex rel. Service Oklahoma, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Texas County, Hon. A. Clark Jett, Trial Judge. Plaintiff/Appellant Robert Booth, Jr. appeals the result of a district court proceeding finding that his driver’s license should be revoked for driving while intoxicated. Based on our review of the record and the governing law, we affirm. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by FISCHER, J.; WISEMAN, P.J. and BLACKWELL, J., concur. June 5, 2025
121,838 – Cornerstone Home Lending, A Division of Cornerstone Capital Bank, SSB, Plaintiff/Appellee, vs. Mark E. Mongold and Tammy Mongold, Defendants/Appellants. Appeal from the District Court of Canadian County, Hon. Paul Hesse, Trial Judge. Defendants/appellants, Mark E. Mongold and Tammy Mongold appeal a summary judgment of the district court granting foreclosure of a mortgage in favor of plaintiff/appellee, Cornerstone Home Lending, a division of Cornerstone Capital Bank, SSB (Cornerstone). On review, we find the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Cornerstone. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HUBER, J; HIXON, V.C.J., and BARNES, P.J., concur. June 6, 2025
121,929 – In the Matter of the Estate of Larry Joe Whittet, Deceased: Terry Hammons, Appellant, v. Tara McKee, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Pottawatomie County, Hon. John G. Canavan, Trial Judge. In this probate proceeding, Appellant Terry Hammons appeals from an Order of the district court in which the court found a certain quit claim deed executed by Larry Joe Whittet (Decedent) to Appellee Tara McKee was legally valid and effective. The Order implicitly vacated an earlier default judgment entered on Mr. Hammons’ application to quiet title to the subject property in which the court found the deed was void. Mr. Hammons appeals from the Order because, among other reasons, in addition to vacating the default judgment, the trial court awarded affirmative relief to Ms. McKee finding the property was successfully transferred to Ms. McKee and is excluded from the estate’s assets. Thus, Mr. Hammons argues his due process rights to notice and an opportunity to be heard were denied. Based on the record presented on appeal and our review of the court’s appearance docket, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in vacating the default judgment, but did abuse its discretion in addressing the validity of the quit claim deed in the motion to vacate stage and in determining ownership of the subject property. Accordingly, we reverse the Order and remand the case for further proceedings. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by BARNES, C.J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. June 9, 2025
Division III
Division IV
121,847 – In the Matter of the Guardianship of T.D.S. & S.I.S, minor children: Michael Krohmer and Shannon Krohmer, Appellants, vs. Kelly Taylor, Appellee. Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Cleveland County, Hon. Kim Conyers, Special Judge. Michael and Shannon Krohmer appeal the district court’s order denying their motion to intervene in the adoption proceedings of minor children, T.D.S and S.I.S. The court found the Krohmers lacked standing to intervene. Upon review, we agree and thereby affirm. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV by BLACKWELL, J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. June 4, 2025
122,103 – Oklahoma Central Credit Union, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. John H. Riley, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Honorable April Collins, Trial Judge. Plaintiff Oklahoma Central Credit Union (“OCCU”) appeals the trial court’s dismissal without prejudice of an action to recover for breach of a promissory note, pursuant to 12 O.S.2021, § 1083, and denial of its motion to vacate that dismissal. OCCU’s suit was not subject to dismissal under section 1083 because its Motion for Default was pending during the year prior to the dismissal. The trial court’s denial of the motion to vacate is reversed. We vacate the order of dismissal without prejudice and remand for further proceedings. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, V.C.J.; BARNES, P.J., and HUBER, J., concur. June 4, 2025