Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | June 15, 2022
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
119,215 — In Re The Marriage Of: Barbara Ann Keller, Petitioner/Appellee/Counter-Appellant, v. Jerry Jay Keller, Respondent/Appellant/Counter-Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Stephens County, Oklahoma. Honorable G. Brent Russell, Trial Judge. Respondent/Appellant, Jerry Jay Keller, and Petitioner/Appellee, Barbara Ann Keller, appeal a decree of dissolution of marriage. Due to Husband’s continued support during a long delay between the petition and the decree, the terms of the temporary order were continued by agreement of the parties and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding unpaid temporary support. Wife’s age, physical condition, potential to earn income, the length of the marriage, and Husband’s income, supported post-decree alimony of $424,000. Debt incurred by both parties after the petition was filed was nevertheless jointly acquired based on evidence Husband continued to support Wife. Affirmed. Opinion by GOREE, J.; BELL, P.J., dissents, MITCHELL, V.C.J. (sitting by designation), concurs. June 14, 2022
Division II
Division III
119,626 — In the Matter of the Guardianship of Sandra Gay Ruffin, an incapacitated person. St. John Medical Center, d/b/a Ascension St. John Medical Center, Petitioner/Appellee, v. Justin Ruffin and Kristin Ruffin, Respondents/Appellants. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Anthony J. Miller, Trial Judge. Respondents/Appellants Justin Ruffin and Kristin Ruffin (Former Guardians) appeal from the trial court’s order which 1) denied their motion to vacate an earlier order granting Petitioner/Appellee St. John Medical Center’s (St. John) petition to compel Former Guardians to cooperate with St. John on moving Sandra Gay Ruffin (Ward) to a different care facility, and 2) removed them as co‑guardians of Ward. The record on appeal shows no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s order. Because we find no reversible error of law and the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the trial court’s order adequately explain its decision, we AFFIRM by summary opinion under Rule 1.202(d). Opinion by SWINTON, J.; MITCHELL, V.C.J., and PRINCE, P.J., CONCUR. June 8, 2022
119,189 — Mary Elizabeth Clark, Petitioner/Appellant v. Stanlei Gherardo Clark, Respondent/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Hughes County, Oklahoma. Honorable Trisha D. Smith, Trial Judge. This dissolution of marriage action has a lengthy procedural history. The Petitioner/Appellant, Mary Elizabeth Clark, now Babb (“Wife”), appeals a Journal Entry and Decree of Divorce and Dissolution that was entered on January 16, 2020. During 2012, the Parties presented an agreed Decree of Dissolution of Marriage to the trial court that was approved and filed of record. Approximately three years later, in 2015, the trial court entered an Order Modifying the Decree. Husband filed a Motion to Vacate those orders, which was granted. After vacating the 2012 Decree and the 2015 Order Modifying the Decree, a trial was held on the merits of the Parties’ divorce action. In the 2020 Decree, the trial court ordered Respondent/Appellee, Stanlei Gherardo Clark (“Husband”), to pay the majority of the Parties’ marital debt, leaving him with debt in excess of the value of his assets. The trial court found that Husband also owed past‑due child support, but his requirement to pay child support was fully offset by a credit for marital debt that the trial court found necessary “for purposes of equity.” After a review of the record, we find that it was error for the trial court to vacate the Parties’ 2012 Decree. We find, however, that it was not error for the trial court to vacate the 2015 Order Modifying the Decree and also to order the payment of child support by Husband. With the 2012 Decree in force, it was legal error for the trial court, in 2020, to reconsider how the 2012 Decree addressed the equitable division of assets and, thereby, fully offset Husband’s obligation for past‑due child support. The central issue to resolve here is what amount of credit Husband should be granted as an offset toward his child support arrearages after consideration of marital debt omitted from the 2012 Decree. Based on this Court’s re‑allocation of the marital debt on an equal basis, we modify the 2020 Decree to reduce Husband’s allocation for the total marital debt and utilize the reduced sum as a credit of offset against Husband’s obligation for past‑due child support. Consequently, Wife is entitled to an award for past‑due child support in the amount of $30,663.00, plus statutory interest from October, 2019, to the present. The trial court’s 2020 Decree is, therefore, AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED. Opinion by PRINCE, P.J.; MITCHELL, V.C.J., and SWINTON, J., CONCUR. June 10, 2022
119,517 — Larry Rouse, Mary Rouse, Robert Smith, Becky Smith, Jason Thompson, Cynthia Brooks, Harvey Brooks, Mary Ann Purdum and Jason Rouse, Plaintiffs/Appellees v. William Dale Wickham and Benjamin Jay Wickham, Defendants/Appellants. Appeal from the District Court of Kay County, Oklahoma. Honorable david R. Bandy, Trial Judge. William and Benjamin Wickham erected a 12,000 square‑foot building for the purpose of establishing a commercial medical marijuana indoor grow facility in Kay County. The protective covenants in the neighborhood, however, expressly prohibit business and trade. The Wickhams’ neighbors brought suit for breach of the covenants and to enjoin the Wickhams from conducting business on the property. The Wickhams asserted multiple equitable defenses. The trial court entered judgment for neighbors and permanently enjoined the Wickhams from utilizing the property for commercial business activity, compelled them to cease all construction of buildings that relate to same, and granted a mandatory injunction requiring the Wickhams to remove the 12,000 square‑foot building for breach of the covenant. We AFFIRM the permanent injunctions. We REVERSE the mandatory injunction, however, because the building on its own does not violate the covenants’ prohibition on business or trade. The trial court entered further judgment against non‑party, Wickham Properties, LLC, and granted relief on the Wickhams’ dismissed counter‑claim. These judgments are void because the trial court did not have in personam jurisdiction to enter judgment against Wickham Properties, LLC. or jurisdictional power to adjudicate the Wickhams’ dismissed counter‑claim. Finally, as the prevailing party, Neighbors are entitled to a reasonable attorney fee under 60 O.S. 2011 §856. Opinion by MITCHELL, V.C.J.; PRINCE, P.J., and SWINTON, J., CONCUR. June 10, 2022
Division IV
120,002 — In the Matter of: L.T.M., and L.K.M., Alleged Deprived Children, Ronrago Green, Appellant, vs. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from an order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Mark McCormick, Trial Judge. Ronrago Green (Father) appeals an order entering the jury’s verdict terminating his rights to the children: L.T.M. and L.K.M. Father and the children are members of the Muscogee Nation, and the Oklahoma and federal Indian Child Welfare Acts apply. Father alleges State did not sufficiently prove that active efforts were made to prevent the breakup of the Indian family, did not sufficiently prove the ground for termination and that termination was in the children’s best interests, and did not sufficiently prove that his continued custody was likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the children. He also alleges the trial court erred by denying his motion for mistrial. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the order. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, J.; FISCHER, C.J., and BARNES, P.J., concur. June 8, 2022
119,680 — Corey A. Taylor, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Jeffrey A. Kiger, individually, and Central Liquor Company, LP, d/b/a RNDC a/k/a Republic National Distributing Company, a domestic corporation, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from Order of the District Court of Washington County, Hon. Russell C. Vaclaw, Trial Judge. In this negligence action arising out of a single-vehicle automobile accident, Plaintiff Corey A. Taylor appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants Jeffrey A. Kiger and Kiger’s employer, Central Liquor Company, LP d/b/a RNDC and a/k/a Republic National Distributing Company (hereafter Republic). At the time of the accident, Plaintiff, a staffing company employee of Exclusive Staffing, was working for that company’s client, Republic. Plaintiff sustained injuries while riding as a passenger in Republic’s vehicle, driven by Kiger. The issue raised on appeal is whether Plaintiff’s tort claims against Defendants are barred by workers’ compensation law exclusive remedy provisions. Defendants’ summary judgment motion and evidentiary materials established a “loaned servant” employment relationship between Plaintiff and Republic and supported Defendants’ claim of tort immunity under the workers’ compensation “Exclusivity” provisions of 85A O.S. Supp. 2013 § 5. The district court did not err in determining that Defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on that defense. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV by FISCHER, C.J.; BARNES, P.J., and HIXON, J., concur. June 8, 2022