Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | June 24, 2026
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
122,977 – In the Matter of K. F., and S.F. Alleged Deprived Children. Tiffany Fine, Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma. Appeal from the District Court of Cherokee County, Oklahoma. Honorable Jerry S. Moore, Trial Judge. Appellant/Natural Mother Tiffany Fine (Mother) appeals from an order terminating her parental rights to two minor children, S.F. and K.F. On appeal, Mother argues that the State failed to meet its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence at trial, that the appointed attorney for the minor children had a conflict of interest, and that the trial court failed to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act in determining that active efforts were expended to prevent the breakup of the family. We affirm. Opinion by SWINTON, P.J.; BELL, J., and GOREE, J., concur. June 22, 2026
Division II
122,615 – State of Oklahoma ex rel. Department of Transportation, Plaintiff/ Appellant, vs. Shiv Sairam, LLC, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company, Defendant/Appellee, and Quail Creek Bancshares, Inc., d/b/a Quail Creek Bank, an Oklahoma for Profit Business Corporation; and the Tulsa County Board of Commissioners, Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Honorable Caroline Wall, Trial Judge. The Oklahoma Department of Transportation appeals a judgment in favor of Defendant Shiv Sairam, LLC, a limited liability company, entered on a jury verdict in this condemnation case. We conclude it was error to permit Sairam to recover damage to its business from the closing of the Elwood exit. Sairam’s claim for damages arising from the closing of the Elwood exit properly belongs in a separate inverse condemnation action. Even if Sairam could have brought an inverse condemnation action in ODOT’s condemnation proceeding—which we believe it could not—because the trial court failed to correctly instruct the jury on this issue, Sairam recovered damages on its inverse condemnation damage theory without having to prove that closing the Elwood exit constituted a taking for which it could recover damages. We vacate the judgment and remand the case to the trial court for a new trial in accordance with our Opinion. VACATED AND REMANDED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; HIXON, C.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. June 23, 2026
123,464 – Rachel Cosby, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Lillian Grizzle, Defendant/ Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Honorable Richard C. Ogden, Trial Judge. Plaintiff Rachel Cosby appeals the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant Lillian Grizzle. Plaintiff also appeals the denial of her motion to reconsider the order granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Because Plaintiff has not shown the vehicle’s diminished value after it was repaired, the trial court’s order granting summary judgment is affirmed. Based on this conclusion affirming the entry of summary judgment, the trial court’s order denying Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider is also affirmed. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; HIXON, C.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. June 23, 2026
Division III
122,917 – Jacob Echelle, Petitioner/Appellee, v. Serenity Burdett, Respondent/Appellant, and Milton Rickman, Third Party. Appeal from the District Court of Pushmataha County, Oklahoma. Honorable Nicholas Tucker, Trial Judge. Serenity Burdett (Mother) appeals the trial court’s issuance of the Decree of Paternity (Decree) for minor child, J.W.E. Prior to the issuance of the Decree, the trial court issued a Journal Entry and Order Setting Hearing on Custody, Child Support, and Visitation (Journal Entry), wherein it adjudicated Jacob Eschelle as the legal father of J.W.E. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we reject Mother’s arguments and AFFIRM. Opinion by DOWNING, P.J.; PRINCE, V.C.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. June 23, 2026
122,966 – Fount Holland, an individual, and Campaign Advocacy Management Professionals LLS, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Jarrin Jackson, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Rebecca Nightingale, Trial Judge. On appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals was the journal entry of judgment granting Plaintiffs/Appellees Fount Holland and Campaign Advocacy Management Professionals LLC a default judgment and compensatory and punitive damages against Defendant/Appellant Jarrin Jackson after he failed to appear at either the pretrial conference or the subsequent evidentiary hearing on damages. Mr. Jackson alleged that the journal entry was erroneous because the district court lacked personal jurisdiction. The Court of Civil Appeals noted that Mr. Jackson’s initial counsel had filed a reservation of time as provided for in 12 O.S. 2021 §2012(A), which waives objections to personal jurisdiction pursuant to 12 O.S. 2021 §2012(B)(2). Consequently, the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the district court. Opinion by MITCHELL, J.; PRINCE, V.C.J., and BELL, J. (sitting by designation), concur. June 23, 2026
123,124 – In the Matter of the Marriage of Martin: Towanna Martin-Scott, Petitioner/Appellee, v. Kippy Martin, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Cherokee County, Oklahoma. Honorable Jerry S. Moore, Trial Judge. Kippy Martin (“Dr. Martin”), appeals the denial of his Motion to Open, Correct & Vacate Judgment. Dr. Martin and Towanna Martin-Scott (“Ms. Martin-Scott”) were married for approximately eleven years while Dr. Martin was on active duty with the military. The couple’s marriage was dissolved by a Decree of Dissolution of Marriage filed on February 10, 2006 after a contested trial. The property division award included a division of Dr. Martin’s military retirement benefits and the Decree simply stated: “Military Retirement – Court’s value – 50-50”. Correspondence from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“Government”) indicated that the Government interpreted the Decree as awarding Ms. Martin-Scott fifty percent (50%) of all of Dr. Martin’s military retirement benefits he acquired over his entire career with the military. Dr. Martin filed a Motion for Order Nunc Pro Tunc to supplement the terms of the Decree to reflect that Ms. Martin-Scott was only entitled to fifty percent (50%) of the retirement benefits that were attributable to the period of the marriage rather than fifty percent (50%) of all retirement benefits. The trial court denied the motion. Dr. Martin subsequently filed a Motion to Vacate, which was also denied by the trial court. We have reviewed the record and the law and find that the Order valuing the military retirement as 50-50 is vague and ambiguous and we presume that the trial court followed the law. Consequently, the trial court had no authority to award Ms. Martin-Scott any of Dr. Martin’s separate property under 43 O.S. § 121(B). We have reviewed the judgment roll and conclude that the trial court should have entered an Order correcting the Decree of Dissolution of Marriage to reflect what was actually determined at the time of the contested divorce trial. Accordingly, this matter is REVERSED AND REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. Opinion by PRINCE, V.C.J.; DOWNING, P.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. June 23, 2026
123,221 – n re the Marriage of: Michael Scott Tidmore, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Camryn Lianna Tidmore, Respondent/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Major County, Oklahoma. Honorable Tim Haworth, Trial Judge. Petitioner/Appellant, Michael Scott Tidmore (“Father”), appeals a Journal Entry denying his Motion to Modify Custody. Father and Respondent/Appellee, Camryn Lianna Tidmore (“Mother”), are the parents of one male minor child, L.C.S.T., (“Child”). Father sought modification of custody after obtaining an emergency order due to significant bruising that occurred after Mother’s boyfriend, Dylan Lively (“Lively”), paddled the Child. Father claims that the trial court committed error by denying his Motion to Modify Custody and by excluding other evidence of abuse that occurred in Mother’s home. We disagree with Father and find that there was no reversible error. We, therefore, AFFIRM the Journal Entry entered by the trial court. Opinion by PRINCE, V.C.J.; DOWNING, P.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. June 23, 2026
123,378 – In Re the Marriage of: Tony Norton, Petitioner/Appellee, v. Sheila Ann Norton, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Carter County, Oklahoma. Honorable Ryan G. Hunnicutt, Trial Judge. Appellant, Sheila Ann Norton (Wife) appeals from the trial court’s issuance of the Decree of Dissolution of Marriage (Decree) and Summary Order denying Wife’s Motion for New Trial or in the Alternative Motion to Vacate Decree of Dissolution of Marriage and Brief in Support (Motion for New Trial). Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we reject Wife’s arguments and AFFIRM. Opinion by DOWNING, P.J.; PRINCE, V.C.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. June 23, 2026
123,718 – William Miles Philpott, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. City of Pauls Valley, City of Lindsey, Board of County Commissioners of the County of Garvin and Garvin County Sherriff’s Department, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Garvin County, Oklahoma. Honorable Jeff Virgin, Trial Judge. William Philpott (“Appellant” or “William”) appeals the award of summary judgment to the City of Pauls Valley, the City of Lindsay, and the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Garvin (Defendants/Appellees) (collectively “Defendants”). The issues here are (1) whether Defendants were exempt from liability under 51 O.S. § 155(6) of the Oklahoma Government Tort Claim Act for providing protective law enforcement services; and (2) alternatively, whether the Defendants, as law enforcement officers, owed William a duty of care during the emergency response on June 18, 2022 due to the fact William was suffering a mental health crisis. Based upon our review of the record and relevant legal authority, we find no error in the trial court’s grant of summary judgment. The trial court’s December 11, 2025 Order granting Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment is, accordingly, AFFIRMED. Opinion by PRINCE, V.C.J.; MITCHELL, J., and GOREE, J.(sitting by designation), concur. June 23, 2026
123,768 – Bleek Elie Wehba, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Bobby Ray Brawdy, individually, and Good Guys Bail Bonds, LLC, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Canadian County, Oklahoma. Honorable Paul Hesse, Trial Judge. Bleek Wehba (Wehba) appeals the December 10, 2025, Order granting the Motion to Dismiss filed by Bobby Ray Brawdy (Brawdy) and Good Guys Bail Bonds, LLC (LLC), (collectively Appellees). Wehba also appeals the trial court’s January 16, 2026, Order denying Wehba’s Motion to Vacate. As no reversible error of law appears and the orders more than adequately explain the trial court’s decision, we summarily AFFIRM the Order pursuant to OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT RULE 1.202(d), 12 O.S.2021, Ch. 15, App. 1. Opinion by DOWNING, P.J.; PRINCE, V.C.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. June 23, 2026
123,867 – LVNV Funding LLC, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Jennifer Weyna, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Creek County, Oklahoma. Honorable Robert Getchell, Trial Judge. LVNV Funding LLC (Appellant) appeals the trial court’s order granting Jennifer R. Weyna’s (Appellee) motion to dismiss. The trial court’s Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Order) found Appellant’s Petition for Indebtedness was untimely based on 12 O.S.2021, § 100. After reviewing the record and the law, this Court finds the trial court erred as a matter of law. Thus, we REVERSE the decision of the trial court AND REMAND for further proceedings. Opinion by DOWNING, P.J.; PRINCE, V.C.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. June 23, 2026
Division IV
123,416 – E.L. Construction, LLC, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Developmental Industries, Inc., Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Marshall County, Hon. Wallace Coppedge, Trial Judge. In its order filed in June 2025, the district court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss. In its order filed in September 2025, the district court denied Plaintiff’s “Motion to Reconsider/Vacate Ruling Dismissing Case.” Plaintiff appeals, asserting the district court “erred in refusing to apply 15 O.S. § 821(B)(1) to nullify the subject forum selection clause” in the parties’ equipment rental agreement, and “erred in refusing to recognize the application of 15 O.S. § 820 to this case.” We conclude the statute in question does not apply to the present circumstances and the forum-selection clause is not rendered void and unenforceable by § 821(B)(1). Accordingly, the district court’s order granting the motion to dismiss, and its order denying the Motion to Reconsider/Vacate Ruling Dismissing Case, are affirmed. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by BARNES, J.; BLACKWELL, P.J., and HUBER, J., concur. June 17, 2026
122,458 – Harrison Business Park, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. MJ Innovations LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company; Shawn Mathews, an individual; Paul James, an individual, Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs/Appellees, vs. Southstar PM, Inc., an Oregon corporation; Andrew South, as an officer of Southstar PM, Inc., and as a member of Harrison Business Park, LLC, and Peter L. Dwares, as member of Harrison Business Park, LLC, Third-Party Defendants/Appellants. Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Pottawatomie County, Hon. John G. Canavan, Jr., District Judge. Appellants, Harrison Business Park (HBP) and Southstar P.M., Inc., Andrew South, and Peter Dwares (collectively “Southstar”), appeal the court’s order awarding HBP attorney fees and denying the same to Southstar. The appellants contend that the court should have awarded HBP more fees, and that it erred in determining that Southstar was not entitled to recover any fees. Upon review, the fee award is affirmed. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV by BLACKWELL, J.; BARNES, J., and HUBER, J., concur. June 18, 2026
121,316 (consolidated with Case No. 121,912) – In re the Marriage of: Rebekah Kay Wilson, Petitioner/Appellee, v. Kristina Lea Williams, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Lynne McGuire, Trial Judge. In this consolidated dissolution of marriage proceeding, Appellant Kristina Lea Williams appeals from the district court’s order which, among other matters, denied her motion for reconsideration/new trial of the court’s judgment determining the legal parents of the minor child at issue in this case. Ms. Williams also appeals from the district court’s attorney fee order in which the court, after entry of the decree of dissolution of marriage, awarded attorney fees to Ms. Wilson. Ms. Williams, however, has waived review of the order awarding attorney fees to Ms. Wilson; thus, the only issue presented in this appeal is the district court’s determination of Ms. Williams’s legal status with respect to the minor child. We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by ruling that 10 O.S. 2021 § 7700-204 is gender specific and does not provide Ms. Williams with a means to establish a legal parental relationship with the minor child. We further conclude the Legislature’s gender-specific intent evidenced in § 7700-204 and other provisions of the UPA is substantially related to an important state interest and, thus, Ms. Williams’s equal protection rights have not been violated. Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that Ms. Williams failed to establish a mother/child relationship with the minor child under the UPA because she is not the child’s biological mother and she chose not to adopt the child. We thus affirm the district court’s order denying Ms. Williams’s motion for new trial. Additionally, we grant Ms. Wilson’s motion for appeal-related attorney fees as mandated by 43 O.S. 2021 § 112.6. We thus remand the case to the district court to determine the amount of those fees. Accordingly, we affirm and remand. AFFIRMED AND REMANDED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by BARNES, J.; HUBER, J., concurs, and BLACKWELL, P.J., dissents. June 18, 2026
123,326 – In the Matter of A.R., D.R., and H.R., Deprived Children: Austin Rush, Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Ottawa County, Hon. R. Matt Whalen, Trial Judge. In this termination of parental rights proceeding, Appellant Austin Rush (Father) appeals from an order of the trial court upon a jury verdict terminating his parental rights to his minor children. At the time of trial, Father was incarcerated in an out-of-state jail. Two days before trial, Father’s counsel was informed the jail administration refused to allow Father to participate in the trial electronically. Under the facts of this case, the trial court’s failure to provide any alternative procedural safeguards for Father’s participation in the termination of parental rights trial was a violation of his procedural due process rights. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by BARNES, J.; BLACKWELL, P.J., and HUBER, J., concur. June 23, 2026
123,599 – In the Matter of Z.Z., Alleged Deprived Child, Wen Qi Liang, Appellant, vs. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Mark C. McCormick, Trial Judge. Wen Qi Liang (Mother) appeals the district court’s order finding Mother failed to correct the conditions leading to the adjudication of the child as deprived pursuant to 10A O.S.2021 § 1-4-904(B)(5) and has a cognitive disorder per 10A O.S.2021 § 1-4-904(B)(13), thereby terminating her parental rights to the minor child, ZZ, after a non-jury trial. From our review of the record on appeal, we conclude the district court did not err and the district court’s order terminating Mother’s parental rights in ZZ is affirmed. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HUBER, J.; BLACKWELL, P.J., and BARNES, J., concur. June 23, 2026