Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | June 4, 2025
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
122,272 – Katelyn McKenzie Garza, Petitioner/Appellee, v. Jennifer Lynn Greethurst, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Garfield County, Oklahoma. Honorable Allison Lafferty, Trial Judge. The victim protective order issued against Appellant is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial because the narrative statement suggests the trial court may have based its determination on non-statutory grounds. Opinion by GOREE, P.J.; SWINTON, J., and PRINCE, J., concur. May 29, 2025
122,565 – In the Matter of: L.L.-F., Alleged Deprived Child, Sandra Licciardello, Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Okmulgee County, Oklahoma. Honorable Pandee Ramiez, Trial Judge. Sandra Licciardello has appealed the trial court’s Order which both (1) denied her Motion to Intervene in the underlying deprived child action involving her biological grandchild, L.L-F.; and (2) sustained the Objection to Removal of L.L-F. from his non-kinship relative foster placement with Brittany Manzanares. Ms. Licciardello alleged the trial court erred as a matter of law in denying her Motion to Intervene, contending she was denied the right to fully participate in L.L-F.’s deprived child proceedings as his maternal grandmother. Ms. Licciardello alleged the trial court erred in ordering that L.L-F. remain in Ms. Manzanares’ care notwithstanding the Department of Human Services’ approval of L.L-F.’s placement with Ms. Licciardello. Based upon our review of the record and relevant authority, we find no error in the trial court’s Order and it is, accordingly, AFFIRMED. Opinion by PRINCE, J.; GOREE, P.J., and SWINTON, J., concur. May 29, 2025
122,876 – Lowell J. Robertson, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Carissa Cai King, Individually and as attorney at law for Edna M. Robertson and the Edna M. Robertson Revocable Trust; and Graft & Walraven, PLLC, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Dewey County, Oklahoma. Honorable Justin P. Eilers, Trial Judge. This matter involves an appeal of an Order that dismissed the Petition by the Plaintiff/Appellant, Lowell J. Robertson (“Lowell”). Lowell filed suit against Defendant/Appellee, Carissa Cae King (“King”), an attorney, and the law firm with which she was formerly employed, Defendant, Graft & Walraven, PLLC. Lowell alleged the Defendants committed legal malpractice in connection with a Third Amendment to a revocable trust which allegedly excluded Lowell from receiving anything from his mother’s estate and reduced the amount of property Kasandra, another beneficiary, would receive. It was alleged that Edna Robertson, Lowell’s mother, suffered from Alzheimer’s disease at the time of execution of the Third Amendment. The Petition contained extensive allegations concerning Edna’s lack of mental capacity and that, as a result thereof, Lowell alleged that King breached her duty of care to assess Edna’s mental capacity, or, alternatively, that King breached her duty of care because she knew or should have known that Edna lacked the requisite capacity to execute any new estate planning documents. The trial court dismissed the matter, but did not provide Lowell an opportunity to cure the defects in the Petition. The trial court determined that Lowell failed to state claims for relief, and that, under no set of facts, could he state any requisite facts to state a claim for relief. We find that decision to deny the filing of an amended petition represented an abuse of discretion. Having reviewed the record and applicable law, we find that the Journal Entry entered by the trial court dismissing the case should be AFFIRMED, IN PART, REVERSED, IN PART, AND REMAND to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. Opinion by PRINCE, J.; GOREE, P.J., and SWINTON, J., concur. May 29, 2025
122,877 – Lowell J. Robertson, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Carissa Cae King, Individually and as attorney at law for Edna M. Robertson and the Edna M. Robertson Revocable Trust; and Graft & Walraven, PLLC, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Dewey County, Oklahoma. Honorable Justin P. Eilers, Trial Judge. This matter involves an appeal of an Order by the trial court that dismissed the Petition filed by the Plaintiff/Appellant, Lowell J. Robertson (“Lowell”). Lowell filed suit against Defendant/Appellee, Graft & Walraven, PLLC, a law firm, and an attorney formerly associated with the law firm, Carissa Cae King (“King”). Lowell alleged the Defendants committed legal malpractice in connection with a Third Amendment to a revocable trust which allegedly excluded Lowell from receiving anything from his mother’s estate and reduced the amount of property Kasandra, another beneficiary, would receive. It was alleged that Edna Robertson, Lowell’s mother, suffered from Alzheimer’s disease at the time of execution of the Third Amendment. The Petition contained extensive allegations concerning Edna’s lack of mental capacity and that, as a result thereof, Lowell alleged that King breached her duty of care to assess Edna’s mental capacity or, alternatively, that King breached her duty of care because she knew or should have known that Edna lacked the requisite capacity to execute any new estate planning documents. The trial court determined that Lowell’s claims against Graft & Walraven were barred by the statute of limitations and, consequently, dismissed the Petition. We have reviewed the record and applicable law and find that the trial court committed no error, and the Journal Entry entered by the trial court dismissing the case should be AFFIRMED. Opinion by PRINCE, J.; GOREE, P.J., and SWINTON, J., concur. May 29, 2025
Division II
Division III
122,433 – In the Matter of: G.A., K.A., & M.P., Deprived Children, Brandon Aaron and Christine Aaron, Respondents/Appellants, v. State of Oklahoma, Petitioner/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Le Flore County, Oklahoma. Honorable Jennifer H. McBee, Trial Judge. Mother’s and Father’s parental rights were terminated following a jury trial. Mother’s rights were terminated for failure to correct the conditions that led to the children’s deprived adjudication, the length of time they were in foster care and the inability to safely return the children to the home. Father’s rights were terminated for failure to correct conditions, his incarceration, the substantial erosion of his relationship with his child, his failure to communicate with the child, the length of time the child was in foster care and the inability to safely return the child to the home. On appeal, Mother did not file a brief. Father mainly contends the State did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that termination was in the child’s best interests. Our standard of review in termination of parental rights cases is whether the trial court’s findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence. In re S.B.C., 2002 OK 83, &7, 64 P.3d 1080, 1083. The termination grounds for both Mother and Father were supported by law and the necessary evidence. AFFIRMED. Opinion by MITCHELL, J.; BELL, C.J., and DOWNING, P.J., concur. May 29, 2025
122,688 – In the Matter of the Adoption of: S.D.W. and K.J.W., Minor Children, Dillon Reid Horstman and Kelsie James Horstman, Petitioners/Appellees, v. Jesse Sliger, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Garvin County, Oklahoma. Honorable Laura McClain, Trial Judge. In this adoption proceeding filed by Petitioners/Appellees, Dillon Reid Horstman and Kelsie James Horstman, husband and wife (Stepfather and biological Mother, jointly Petitioners), Respondent/Appellant, Jesse Slinger (Father), the biological father of the minor children, appeals from the trial court’s order determining the two minor children eligible for adoption without Father’s consent. The court determined Father’s consent was unnecessary under 10 O.S. 2021 §7505-4.2(B)(1) because Father failed to pay court-ordered child support for twelve (12) consecutive months out of the fourteen (14) months immediately preceding the filing of the petition for adoption. The court also determined Father’s consent was unnecessary under §7505-4.2(H) because Father failed to establish and/or maintain a substantial and positive relationship with the minor children for a period of twelve (12) consecutive months out of the last fourteen (14) months immediately preceding the filing of the petition for adoption. On appeal, Father argues the trial court erred in finding Father’s consent was unnecessary because Petitioners failed to prove with clear and convincing evidence that Father’s consent was unnecessary under 10 O.S. 2021 §7505-4.2(B) and (H). After de novo review of the record, we AFFIRM. Opinion by BELL, C.J.; DOWNING, P.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. May 29, 2025
Division IV
122,726 – Beau Landon Brown, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Service Oklahoma, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Texas County, Hon. Clark Jett, Trial Judge. Beau Landon Brown appeals from the district court’s Final Order sustaining the revocation of his driver’s license by Service Oklahoma (SOK). Based on the record and applicable law, we conclude Mr. Brown was given proper and timely notice by SOK of the revocation of his driving privileges and was not denied his due process right to a speedy trial. We further conclude SOK met its evidentiary burden that the arresting officer had reasonable belief that Mr. Brown was under the influence at the time of his arrest. Thus, the district court did not err in sustaining the revocation of his license. Accordingly, we affirm the Final Order. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by BARNES, P.J.; HIXON, V.C.J., and HUBER, J., concur. May 28, 2025
120,890 – Lionel Lewis, Plaintiff/Appellee, vs. Anthony Corrente, individually and d/b/a Prime Construction Services and Prime Construction Group, LLC, and Sherry Corrente, individually and d/b/a Prime Construction Services and Prime Construction Group, LLC, Defendants/Appellants. Appeal from the District Court of Canadian County, Hon. Jack D. McCurdy II, Trial Judge. Defendants, Anthony and Sherry Corrente, individually and d/b/a Prime Construction Services and Prime Construction Group, LLC, appeal from an order of the district court following a non-jury trial. Among other things, the district court found “the defendants, Anthony Corrente and Sherry Corrente did maliciously, willfully and intentionally interfere with [Plaintiff’s] contract of employment.” The district court found Plaintiff suffered damages for lost wages in the amount of $15,000, and it further found punitive damages are warranted. Because Plaintiff did not sustain any special damages in connection with his slander of title claim, he failed to satisfy an essential element of that claim and, therefore, the court erred in finding “that the defendant Prime Construction Services Group, L.L.C. did slander the title of the plaintiff in this case.” However, we otherwise affirm the court’s judgment. REVERSED IN PART AND AFFIRMED IN PART. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by BARNES, P.J.; HIXON, V.C.J., and HUBER, J., concur. May 29, 2025
122,349 – In the Matter of TJJ, JDJ, and PJJ, Alleged Deprived Children, Brittany Waldenville, Appellant, vs. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Marshall County, Honorable Greg J. Johnson, Trial Judge. Brittany Waldenville (Mother) appeals an order entering a jury’s verdict terminating her parental rights to the minor children TJJ, JDJ and PJJ. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we find State failed to present clear and convincing evidence to support termination. The trial court’s order is therefore reversed. REVERSED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, V.C.J.; BARNES, P.J., and HUBER, J., concur. May 29, 2025
122,152 – Onpoint Oil & Gas LLC, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Bio Tech, Inc., Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Lincoln County, Hon. Lee Turner, Trial Judge. Plaintiff appeals from the district court’s “Order Denying Plaintiff’s Petition to Vacate Judgments.” A dismissal order is not a final order – and is, instead, a nonappealable, interlocutory order – when the plaintiff is free to move to amend its petition or when the trial court has granted leave to amend. Therefore, we are presented merely with an interlocutory dismissal that does not have the same effect as a final judgment. Upon a sua sponte inquiry into our jurisdiction, we dismiss this appeal as premature. APPEAL DISMISSED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by BARNES, P.J.; HIXON, V.C.J., and HUBER, J., concur. June 3, 2025
122,240 – Shelton Redi-Mix, LLC, and The Insurance Co. of the West, Petitioners, vs. Charles D. Caul and The Workers’ Compensation Commission, Respondents. Appeal from the Workers’ Compensation Commission. Shelton Redi-Mix, LLC (Employer) and The Insurance Co. of the West appeal the Oklahoma Workers’ Compensation Commission’s Order Affirming the Decision of the Administrative Law Judge denying Employer’s statute of limitations defense and awarding Claimant, Charles D. Caul, additional workers’ compensation benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Commission did not err in finding that the ALJ’s order was neither contrary to law nor against the clear weight of the evidence and affirming the ALJ’s August 2, 2023 decision. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HUBER, J.; HIXON V.C.J., and BARNES, P.J., concur. June 3, 2025