Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | June 12, 2024
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
121,994 – Town & Country Investment, L.L.C., Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Tara Tischauser and Jesse Tischauser, Defendants/Appellants. Appeal from the District Court of Logan County, Oklahoma. Honorable Louis A. Duel, Trial Judge. Defendants/Appellants, Tara and Jesse Tischauser, have appealed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor Plaintiff/Appellee, Town & Country Investments, LLC. The Tischausers have argued that the trial court erred as a matter of law by concluding they could not raise their adverse possession and boundary by acquiescence claims as affirmative defenses and further erred by finding that no material facts remained in dispute. We find the trial court’s decision constituted reversible error and, therefore, reverse its grant of Town & Country Investments’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Accordingly, the trial court’s Order is REVERSED, AND this matter is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Opinion by PRINCE, J.; BELL, V.C.J., and SWINTON, P.J., concur.
121,437 – In Re the marriage of Edward Davis, Petitioner/Appellee, v. Patricia Davis, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa, Oklahoma. Honorable Mary Ann Godsby, Trial Judge. This is an appeal from a consent decree of dissolution of marriage. Respondent/Appellant, Patricia Davis (Wife), and Petitioner/Appellee, Edward Davis (Husband), both signed the consent decree for the dissolution of their marriage. The parties acknowledged, before a notary public, that they read, were familiar with, and understood the consent decree and both parties affirmed the statements were true and correct. The decree was approved by the district court. Wife did not attend the approval hearing. The decree awarded Husband the marital home and the indebtedness thereon and awarded Wife $30,000.00 for her share of the home’s equity. The decree awarded Wife all her retirement accounts. The decree also ordered Wife to pay Husband support alimony in the amount of $1,500.00 per month for seven (7) years. Wife appealed contending the consent decree should be vacated because the district court lacked sufficient evidence to divide the marital estate and to order Wife to pay Husband support alimony. Wife also alleged the court erred when it failed to make specific findings that the division of the marital estate was reasonable and equitable. Wife finally contended the court violated Wife’s due process rights by entering the agreed decree without inquiry. Having reviewed the sparse record, we cannot find the district court denied Wife her right to due process. We also cannot find the court abused its discretion or erred when it approved the parties’ consent decree. The district court’s consent decree is AFFIRMED. Opinion by BELL, V.C.J.; SWINTON, P.J., and PRINCE, J., concur. June 7, 2024
121,718 – In the Matter of the Adoption of K.M.L., a minor child, Joshua Canady and Lily Juanita Canady, Petitioners/Appellants, v. Hailey Marie Fine, Respondent/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Okmulgee County, Oklahoma. Honorable Cynthia Pickering, Trial Judge. This is an appeal from an order denying an application for an order determining a minor child eligible for adoption without the consent of the biological mother, Respondent/Appellee, Hailey Marie Fine (Mother) and the biological father, Chistian Slade Lebel. Petitioners/Appellants, Joshua Canady and Lily Juanita Canady, Husband and Wife, are the legal guardians of the child (Guardians). Lily Canady is the step-mother of the biological father of the child. The child was born on November 12, 2019. Mother was sixteen (16) years old, and she was not married to father when the child was born. Guardians obtained temporary guardianship of the child April 12, 2020. The guardianship order contained no provision for child support because Mother was sixteen (16) years old when the child was born. Guardians filed the petition to adopt the child in the Okmulgee County District Court, on October 25, 2022. The child was almost four (4) years old by the time of trial. Guardians alleged Mother’s consent was unnecessary because Mother willfully failed, refused, or neglected to contribute to the support of such minor child according to Mother’s financial ability. The court found Mother provided items for the child and Guardians did not encourage Mother to help with the child’s finances. The court found Mother maintained a good relationship with the child through supervised visits; Mother is currently married and has a child with her husband; and Mother is a stay-at-home mom to her toddler. The court held adoption does not promote the child’s best interest and denied Guardians’ application to adopt without the biological parents’ consent. We cannot find the trial court’s ruling was contrary to the clear and convincing evidence and AFFIRM. Opinion by BELL, V.C.J.;; SWINTON, P.J., and PRINCE, J., concur. June 7, 2024
Division II
Division III
Division IV