Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | June 26, 2024
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
121,449 – Dawn Boyd, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Taylor Tharp, Deceased, and on Behalf of the Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Taylor Tharp, Deceased, Plaintiff/appellant, Vs. Paccar, Inc. D/b/a Kenworth Truck Company, Defendant/appellee, and Quick Construction LLC, Quick-lay Pipe, LLC D/b/a Quick-chem, Paccar Financial Corp. D/b/a/ Paccar Leasing Company, Paccar Machinery Corporation, Kenworth Truck Company, Arkansas Kenworth, Inc., Ozark Kenworth, Inc., Texas Kenworth Co., Oklahoma Kenworth, Inc., John Does 1-4 John Does 5-8, John Does 9-12 and John Does 12-15, Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of Blaine County, Oklahoma. Honorable Paul K. Woodward, Trial Judge. Plaintiff/Appellant Dawn Boyd, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Taylor Tharp, deceased, and on behalf of the wrongful death beneficiaries of Taylor Tharp, appeals from an order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant/Appellee PACCAR, Inc. d/b/a/ Kenworth Truck Company in a wrongful death and products liability action related to an accident sustained by the decedent which resulted in his death. On appeal, Plaintiff argues that there were questions of fact regarding the crashworthiness of the truck, the design of the seat belt system, and the overall dangerous nature of the vehicle, and that the trial court erred in striking Plaintiff’s expert witness testimony. We AFFIRM in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. Opinion by SWINTON, P.J.; BELL, V.C.J., concurs and PRINCE, J., specially concurs. June 21, 2024
Division II
120,655 — Tommy Clay, Jr., Petitioner/Appellee, vs. Tanisha Tatum, Respondent/ Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Barry L. Hafar, Trial Judge. Tanisha Tatum appeals a decree of dissolution of marriage which awarded joint custody of the parties’ daughter, ordered her to pay child support, and divided marital property and debt. The questions on appeal are whether the trial court abused its discretion in enforcing its pretrial orders, awarding custody, ordering child support, or dividing the marital estate. After review, we affirm the trial court’s decree. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; BARNES, C.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. June 21, 2024
121,321 – Dori Lientz, Petitioner/Appellee, v. Clifford Newberry, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Kiowa County, Hon. Brad L. Benson, Trial Judge. Clifford Newberry appeals from a final order of protection in which the trial court found the order “is necessary to protect [Dori Lientz] from domestic abuse, stalking, or harassment.” For the reasons discussed herein, we conclude the evidence is insufficient to support an order of protection against Mr. Newberry for domestic abuse, stalking, or harassment; therefore, the trial court abused its discretion in entering the order of protection. Consequently, we vacate the order of protection and remand with instructions to dismiss the petition. VACATED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by BARNES, C.J.; FISCHER, J., concurs, and WISEMAN, P.J., concurs in result. June 21, 2024
120,575 – Amanda Hadley and Kreg Hadley, Plaintiffs/Appellees, vs. Mercy Clinic Oklahoma Communities, Inc., Defendant/Appellant, and GenPath, a tradename for BioReference Laboratories, Inc.; Jessica Cunningham, D.O., and Catherine Williams Gardner, ARNP, Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Anthony L. Bonner, Trial Judge. Appellant/Defendant Mercy Clinic Oklahoma Communities, Inc., appeals a judgment entered after a jury verdict in favor of Appellees/Plaintiffs Amanda Hadley and Kreg Hadley awarding them substantial damages. After review, we conclude the jury’s verdict is supported by competent evidence and the trial court did not erroneously instruct the jury, and we affirm the trial court’s judgment. We also affirm the trial court’s denial of Mercy’s post-trial motions. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; BARNES, C.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. June 24, 2024
Division III
121,370 – In the matter of A.B., alleged deprived child, Frank Ross Benton, biological father, Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma. Apppeal from the District Court of Garfield County, Oklahoma. Honorable Jason Seigars, Trial Judge. This is an appeal from the trial court’s decision to terminate parental rights of Father to Child, who was 15 months old at the time of trial. We affirm. Opinion by GOREE, J.; MITCHELL, P.J., and DOWNING, J., concur. June 18, 2024
121,462 – In re the marriage of Amanda Latta, Petitioner/Appellant, v. James Latta, Respondent/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Mary Ann Godsby, Trial Judge. Appellant, Amanda Latta (Wife) appeals from the trial court’s issuance of the Decree of Dissolution of Marriage (Decree). Wife raises two propositions of error: (1) the trial court erred in determining the school loans acquired for the children’s college education were Wife’s separate debt; and (2) the trial court abused its discretion by not awarding a higher amount of support alimony. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we reject Wife’s arguments and affirm. Opinion by DOWNING, J.; MITCHELL, P.J., and DOWNING, J., concur. June 18, 2024
121,116 – Claire Blay, Petitioner/Appellee, v. Amir Kassem, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Sequoyah County, Oklahoma. Honorable Timothy King, Trial Judge. Claire Blay filed for a protective order against her former partner Amir Kassem. Following a hearing and a review of the evidence, the trial court found Kassem is a physically, verbally, and emotionally abusive individual who perpetrates abuse in the presence of his minor child. The court entered a final order of protection against Kassem, effective for no more than five years unless extended, and ordered him to obtain domestic abuse counseling or treatment. Kassem appealed. We find no reversible errors of law, and the trial court’s order sets forth findings of fact and conclusions of law thoroughly explaining its decision, therefore, we AFFIRM UNDER OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT RULE 1.202(d),(e), 12 O.S. 2011, Ch. 15, App. 1. Opinion by MITCHELL, P.J.; GOREE, J., and DOWNING, J., concur. June 25, 2024
121,117 – In re the Marriage of Kassem and Blay: Amir Kassem, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Claire Blay, Respondent/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Sequoyah County, Oklahoma. Honorable Timothy King, Trial Judge. Amir Kassem filed a petition for dissolution of marriage alleging he is, by common law, married to Claire Blay. Following a hearing and a review for clear and convincing evidence, the trial court found Kassem did not meet his burden to show the parties are common law married as established by evidence of a contemporaneous meeting of the minds in consent. We AFFIRM the trial court’s order as the finding that the parties were not married and the denial of a continuance were not clearly against the weight of the evidence. Opinion by MITCHELL, P.J.; GOREE, J., and DOWNING, J., concur. June 25, 2024
121,118 – Claire Blay, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Amir Kassem, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Sequoyah County, Oklahoma. Honorable Timothy King, Trial Judge. Claire Blay filed a petition to establish paternity and custody/visitation of a minor child against Amir Kassem. Following a hearing and a review of the evidence, the trial court entered a final order establishing paternity in Kassem, awarding sole legal custody to Blay, and granting supervised visitation pending a psychological evaluation to Kassem. Kassem appealed alleging the court erred in denying a continuance of the final hearing, failing to allow Kassem to cross-examine the Guardian ad Litem, limiting his visitation, and awarding sole custody to Blay. We affirm because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance or by preventing Kassem from cross-examining the Guardian ad Litem. As to visitation and custody, we affirm because we find no reversible errors in the court’s finding that Kassem failed to overcome the rebuttable presumption that his visitation should be limited based on the court’s finding of Kassem’s domestic violence and harassment. The trial court’s order sets forth findings of fact and conclusions of law thoroughly explaining its decision. We AFFIRM UNDER OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT RULE 1.202(d),(e), 12 O.S. 2011, Ch. 15, App. 1. Opinion by MITCHELL, P.J.; GOREE, J., and DOWNING, J., concur. June 25, 2024
121,529 – Tina Johnson, Personal Representative of the Estate of Dorothy Pannell, Deceased, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. The Board of County Commissioners of McIntosh County, Oklahoma and McIntosh County Treasurer, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of McIntosh County, Oklahoma. Honorable Brendon Bridges, Trial Judge. Tina Johnson, (Petitioner), the appointed Personal Representative of her mother Dorothy Pannell’s estate, appeals the trial court’s decision that Respondent prevailed under the affirmative defense of laches. Petitioner filed suit against the Board of County Commissioners of McIntosh County and McIntosh County Treasurer (Respondents), claiming an unconstitutional taking with regards to excess proceeds resulting from the 2011 tax sale of a property that Dorothy owned in McIntosh County. Petitioner also sought Declaratory Judgment, claiming that 68 O.S.Supp.2009, § 3131(C) was unconstitutional. A non-jury trial was had on July 7, 2023, and the evidence established that Petitioner was aware Dorothy owned the subject property and was required to pay ad valorem taxes on the property. When Dorothy passed away in 2013, Petitioner made no effort to inquire of Dorothy’s property. Instead, Petitioner waited until August 13, 2021 to file this instant action. Thus, scant evidence could be presented about what occurred during the relevant period surrounding the tax sale. The trial court found that Petitioner was unreasonable in not making inquiry into the property after Dorothy’s death and that the delay in filing suit was prejudicial to Respondents. The trial court found Respondents prevailed based on the affirmative defense of laches. After a thorough review of the record, we AFFIRM. Opinion by DOWNING, J.; MITCHELL, P.J., and GOREE, J., concur. June 25, 2024
121,545 – Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Richard D. Marrs and Laura Marrs, Defendants/Appellants. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Tracy Priddy, Trial Judge. Defendants/Appellants Richard D. Marrs and Laura Marrs (collectively, Mortgagors) appeal from a summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff/Appellee Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC (Lakeview) in Lakeview’s action to foreclose its mortgage on Mortgagors’ real property. Mortgagors claim there were disputed material facts concerning Lakeview’s status as the real party plaintiff in interest and argue the court abused its discretion by denying Mortgagors more time to conduct discovery on the issue. Mortgagors also claim a foreclosure action could not be maintained against Laura because she only signed the mortgage and did not sign a promissory note. We find there are no disputed material facts that should have mandated a denial of summary judgment, no errors of law, and no abuses of discretion. Accordingly, we AFFIRM. Opinion by MITCHELL, P.J.; GOREE, J., and DOWNING, J., concur. June 25, 2024
Division IV
121,058 – Pump Systems Management, Inc., an Oklahoma Corporation, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Iochem Corporation, an Oklahoma Corporation, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Honorable Sheila Stinson, District Judge. Pump Systems Management, Inc., appeals several rulings of the district court. These are (1) the dismissal of Pump Systems’ claims against the Toyota Tsusho Corporation of Japan and Toyota Tsusho America Inc. (collectively Toyota or Toyota entities) on statute of limitations grounds; (2) the dismissal of Pump Systems’ abuse of process claim against Iochem Corporation; (3) the court’s interpretation of a ninety-day cancellation clause in the Pump Systems’ and Iochem’s contract; (4) the court’s exclusion of the deposition of a witness as rebuttal evidence; (5) the court’s refusal to bar oral contract evidence pursuant to the statue of frauds, and (6) the court’s purported failure to make necessary findings. On review, we find no error, and affirm. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by BLACKWELL, J.; HUBER, P.J., and HIXON, J., concur. June 20, 2024
120,720 – Basel Hassoun, M.D., Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Numale Corporation, and Numale OKC, LLC, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Anthony L. Bonner, Trial Judge. Basel Hassoun, MD appeals from the district court’s order which denied his motion to vacate and modify the Arbitration Award, confirmed the Arbitration Award in favor of NuMale Corporation and NuMale OKC, LLC (collectively, Respondents), and entered judgment in Respondents’ favor. After review of the record and applicable law, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, J.; HUBER, P.J., and BLACKWELL, J., concur. June 21, 2024