Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | March 11, 2026
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
122,192 — In the Matter of: A.K.W. and A.K.W., Adjudicated Deprived Children, Bri’anne N. Wiland Petitioner, v. State of Oklahoma, Respondent. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Julie Doss, Trial Judge. Appellant Bri’Anne Wiland (Natural Mother) appeals from a jury verdict terminating her parental rights to two minor children, A.K.W. and A.K.W. On appeal, Natural Mother appears to argue that the trial court erred in entering the jury verdict, and challenges the trial court’s ability to enter the order and the evidence presented at trial. We find that the order is supported by clear and convincing evidence, and therefore we affirm. Opinion by SWINTON, P.J.; BELL, J., and GOREE, J., concur. March 6, 2026
122,542 — Jacob J. Barnhart, Petitioner/Appellee, v. Miranda J. Lamb, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Bryan County, Oklahoma. Honorable Abby Rogers, Trial Judge. Respondent/Appellant Miranda J. Lamb (Mother) appeals from an order modifying custody and child support as between Mother and Petitioner/Appellee Jacob Barnhart (Father). Father was granted custody of the minor children, with Mother having visitation. Mother argues that the order lacks the requisite findings for a modification of custody and that the decision constitutes an abuse of discretion. We reverse and remand for the trial court to make findings regarding a material change of circumstance and the best interests of the children. Opinion by SWINTON, P.J.; BELL, J., concurs and GOREE, J., dissents. March 6, 2026
122,643 — In re the Marriage of: Amy Denise Foster, Petitioner/Appellant/Counter-Appellee, v. Chad Franklin Foster, Respondent/Appellee/Counter-Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Wagoner County, Oklahoma. Honorable John David Luton, Trial Judge. Petitioner/Appellant/Counter-Appellee Amy Denise Foster (Wife) and Respondent/Appellee/Counter-Appellant Chad Franklin Foster (Husband) each appeal from the trial court’s Journal Entry which denied Husband’s application for a new trial but granted in part Husband’s motion to modify property division. We agree with Wife that the trial court erred in finding Husband’s disability pension, which replaced his Plan A pension, is his separate property. We modify the Journal Entry to provide that the portion of Husband’s disability pension attributable to the marriage is marital property subject to the same division as Husband’s other retirement benefits and to award Wife interest on her share of the DROP/Plan B contributions. Opinion by SWINTON, P.J.; BELL, J., and GOREE, J., concur. March 6, 2026
123,282 — HKMF Holdings Company, LLC, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Ascent Midstream Partners, LLC, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Seminole County, Oklahoma. Honorable Brett Butner, Trial Judge. The trial court applied The Production Revenue Standards Act, 52 O.S. §570.1 et seq., and interpreted the first purchaser rule of §570.10(C)(1). Because the record contains conflicting inferences on the material question of whether the proceeds of production were paid to a “producing owner” within the meaning of the statute, the summary judgment is REVERSED. Opinion by GOREE, J.; SWINTON, P.J., and BELL, J., concur. March 6, 2026
123,287 — City of Elk City, Oklahoma, a Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Ben Wooters, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Beckham County, Oklahoma. Honorable Donna L. Dirickson, Trial Judge. Plaintiff/Appellee, City of Elk City, sought declaratory relief against Ben Wooters (Wooters), Defendant/Appellant. In its Petition filed in Beckham County, Oklahoma on May 22, 2023, City asked for a declaration that an alley adjacent to Wooters’ property has been dedicated to public use and has not been closed or vacated. The June 18, 2025 appealed order denying Wooters’ motion to reconsider the grant of summary judgment in favor of the city is AFFIRMED. Opinion by GOREE, J.; SWINTON, P.J., and BELL, J., concur. March 6, 2026
Division II
122,087 — In re the Marriage of: Danny Joe Ray, Petitioner/Appellee, vs. Hallie Ann Ray, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Pontotoc County, Honorable Steve Kessinger, Trial Judge. In this divorce action, Hallie Ann Ray appeals from the trial court decree dividing marital property, asking us to review whether the trial court erred in finding a premarital agreement to be valid and in its property division. After reviewing the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s decisions. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; HIXON, C.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. March 5, 2026
122,641 — In the Matter of: F.L., T.L., E.L., and K.L., Alleged Deprived Children, Beatriz Godoy-Tierrafria and Jesus Linares, Appellants, vs. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Nichole M. Gillett, Trial Judge. Beatriz Godoy-Tierrafria (Mother) and Jesus Linarus (Father, collectively, Parents) appeal an order terminating their parental rights to four children, F.L., T.L., E.L. and K.L. They assert that they were denied due process for lack of an interpreter at a hearing in which an individualized service plan was adopted and because they had no notice of the condition they were to correct; that State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that they failed to correct conditions as to F.L. and T.L; that State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that it was in the best interests of all four children that their parental rights be terminated; that the trial court erroneously denied a motion in limine to exclude reference to referrals on which the children were not adjudicated deprived; and that they received ineffective assistance of counsel. On review of the briefing and the record on appeal, we find no error and affirm the trial court’s judgment. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by HIXON, C.J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. March 5, 2026
122,752 — Keith Layton and Central Crop Care LLC, Plaintiffs/Appellees, vs. George Neal, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Kiowa County, Hon. Rick Marsh, Trial Judge. George Edwin Neal (“Neal”) appeals the district court’s Order awarding Keith Layton and Central Crop Care, LLC (collectively, “Layton”) a judgment. Layton brought suit against Neal for nonpayment of their contract. After a hearing, the district court ruled in favor of Layton and awarded him judgment and court costs. For the first time on appeal, Neal now claims that because Layton was allegedly unlicensed at the time the contract was performed, there was no standing to bring suit as the contract would then be illegal and unenforceable. Based on our review of the briefs and appellate record, we affirm the district court’s Order. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by HIXON, C.J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. March 6, 2026
Division III
122,922 — The Bank of New York Mellon, as Successor Trustee to JPMorgan Chase Bank, as Trustee for Novastar Mortgage Funding Trust, Series 2003-2, Novastar Home Equity Loan Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2003-2, Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. Richard A. Macomb aka Richard A. Macomb IV; Spouse, if any, of Richard A. Macomb, Defendants/Appellees, and John Doe, occupant; Vera Aktansel; Andrea J. Farley, Capitol One Bank (USA), n.a., Barclays Bank Delaware, Delia F. Macomb aka Delia F. Faura and Wendy Leigh Macomb, Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of Cleveland County, Oklahoma. Honorable Thad Balkman, Trial Judge. Appellant, Richard A. Macomb, appeals an Order by the trial court on February 4, 2025, that was entered following a status conference that occurred on January 15, 2025. The controversy stemming from the status conference concerns the validity of a settlement agreement which had been previously documented by and through a Consent Order. After the Consent Order was filed with the trial court, Mr. Macomb independently filed a document similarly entitled “Consent Order”, wherein Mr. Macomb asserted he had not given his attorney authority to sign documents without his approval. Subsequently, Appellee, The Bank of New York Mellon, as Successor Trustee to JPMorgan Chase Bank, as Trustee for Novastar Mortgage Funding Trust, Series 003-2, Novastar Home Equity Loan Asset-Back Certificates, Series 2003-2, set a “status conference” before the trial court on January 15, 2025, during which the trial court found the Consent Order to be “valid” and “in effect.” We find no error in the underlying ruling and, accordingly, AFFIRM the Order of January 15, 2025.. Opinion by PRINCE, V.C.J.; DOWNING, P.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. March 6, 2025
123,040 — William Chadwick Ellis, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Oklahoma State Board of Examiners of Psychology, Defendants/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Osage County, Oklahoma. Honorable Stuart Tate, Trial Judge. William Chadwick Ellis (Ellis) appeals from the March 28, 2025 Order on Judicial Review (Order) affirming the final order of the Oklahoma State Board of Examiners of Psychologists (Board). Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we REVERSE. Opinion by DOWNING, P.J.; PRINCE, V.C.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. March 6, 2025
123,419 — In the Matter of the Adoption of: J.E. & S.E., minor children, Keli Edwards, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Kenneth and Melinda Edwards, Respondents/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Kurt G. Glassco, Trial Judge. Keli Edwards (Mother) appeals the trial court’s July 28, 2025 Order determining that Kenneth and Melinda Edwards (collectively Grandparents) presented clear and convincing evidence that J.E. and S.E. are eligible for adoption without Mother’s consent. After a review of the record, we AFFIRM. Opinion by DOWNING, P.J.; PRINCE, V.C.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. March 6, 2025
123,421 — Alexander Nicholaus Sweet, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Brian Hilfiger, and Cook & Hilfiger, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Muskogee County, Oklahoma. Honorable Orvil Loge, Trial Judge. Plaintiff/Appellant, Alexander Nicholaus Sweet (“Sweet”), appeals the dismissal of his action against his former counsel, Defendants/Appellees, Ben Hilfiger and the law firm of Cook and Hilfiger (collectively referred to as “Hilfiger”). Sweet is an inmate serving a life sentence in federal prison. He sued Hilfiger to obtain files generated while Hilfiger represented Sweet in his criminal case allegedly to seek post-conviction relief in the federal proceeding. Prior to initiation of this lawsuit, Hilfiger informed Sweet that he could not provide Sweet with any files because the federal district court entered a Protective Order precluding defense counsel from providing information to Sweet. Hilfiger filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The trial court ruled in favor of Hilfiger, and after a review of the record and law, we AFFIRM. Opinion by PRINCE, V.C.J.; DOWNING, P.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. March 6, 2025
122,627 — D. Palestine Community Development Limited, d/b/a Northside Heights Apartments, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Chris Billings and Billings Construction Group, Inc., Defendants/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Tracy Priddy, Trial Judge. D. Palestine Community Development Limited, dba Northside Heights Apartments, (Plaintiff/Appellant) has appealed the trial court’s grant of Chris Billings’, both individually and on behalf of Billings Construction Group, Inc., (Defendant/Appellee) Motion in Limine, Motion for Summary Judgment, and Motion for a Directed Verdict. The trial court granted (1) Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s claims for breach of contract, breach of warranty, and negligence; and (2) Defendant’s Motion for a Directed Verdict on Plaintiff’s fraud in the inducement claim. Plaintiff’s claim for a violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act was the sole claim considered by the jury following the four (4) day jury trial. On appeal, Plaintiff has alleged the trial court abused its discretion in granting Defendant’s Motion in Limine which barred one of Plaintiff’s proposed witnesses from testifying as an expert. Plaintiff also maintained the trial court erred in granting Defendant’s Motions for Summary Judgment and a Directed Verdict. Based upon our review, we find no error in the underlying rulings. The trial court’s Orders are, accordingly, AFFIRMED. Opinion by PRINCE, V.C.J.; DOWNING, P.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. March 9, 2026
123,076 — In the Matter of E.O.D., Alleged Deprived Child: Rachel Beth Odom, Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Kevin Gray, Trial Judge. Before the Court of Civil Appeals was an Emergency Custody Order (“ECO”) and Deprivation Adjudication of minor child E.O.D. (“Minor Child”), brought by natural mother Rachel Beth Odom (“Appellant”). After Minor Child’s natural father was killed in Appellant’s house, with both Minor Child and Appellant present, Appellant took Minor Child to Appellant’s father’s house before surrendering to authorities on suspicion of murder. The following day, Oklahoma Department of Human Services filed an application with Tulsa County District Court for the ECO, which was granted, and DHS took emergency custody of Minor Child. Subsequently, the district court conducted a non-jury trial and found Minor Child deprived. Appellant, now charged with Natural Father’s murder, appealed both orders on the grounds that the application for an ECO was formally defective, the emergency custody hearing was conducted without notice to her, and the deprivation adjudication was improperly based on her refusal to testify on Fifth Amendment grounds and not supported by clear and convincing evidence. The Court of Civil Appeals held that (a) the ECO did not fail to meet statutory formal requirements, (b) the notice issue for the emergency custody hearing was cured by allowing Appellant the opportunity to be heard and present evidence at subsequent hearings, (c) the district court’s requirement that Appellant take the stand as a witness, and taking negative inferences from her refusal to answer, were not inconsistent with Fifth Amendment jurisprudence, (d) the district court’s finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that Minor Child was deprived, was not erroneous. Both orders were AFFIRMED. Opinion by MITCHELL, J.; PRINCE, V.C.J., concurs and GOREE, J.(sitting by designation), concurs in result. March 9, 2026
Division IV
122,407 — Peak Equity Group, LLC and High Peaks Financial, LLC, Plaintiffs/Appellees, vs. Wynn Wynn Solutions, LLC and David Nguyen, Defendants/Appellants. Proceeding to review an Order of the District Court of Cleveland County, Hon. Jeff Virgin, District Judge. The defendants—Wynn Wynn Solutions LLC and David Nguyen—appeal the trial court’s order confirming the sale of real property. Upon review, we find that the plaintiffs were entitled to foreclose on the property at issue and thereby affirm the order confirming the sheriff’s sale of that property. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV by BLACKWELL, P.J.; BARNES, J., and HUBER, J., concur. March 4, 2026
122,952 — H&G Paving Contractors, Inc., Plaintiff/Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Department of Transportation, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Aletia Timmons, Trial Judge. Plaintiff appeals from the district court’s order granting the motion for summary judgment of Defendant (ODOT), and from the district court’s order denying Plaintiff’s application for injunctive relief. The basis of ODOT’s motion for summary judgment is that Plaintiff was required to submit a claim pursuant to certain contract dispute resolution procedures set forth in the parties’ contract prior to pursuing such a claim in the district court. However, ODOT’s position is correct regarding only a limited type of contract claim involving changed conditions not covered by the contract. As in M.J. Lee Construction Company v. Oklahoma Transportation Authority, 2005 OK 87, 125 P.3d 1205, the dispute resolution procedures in the present case apply to this limited category of claims, but not to the scope of work and compensation previously agreed upon by the parties and set forth in their contract and any supplemental agreements executed by them. Because Plaintiff’s claims arise from the parties’ contract, we reverse the order granting summary judgment and remand for further proceedings. As to Plaintiff’s application for injunctive relief, however, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Plaintiff’s application. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by BARNES, J.; BLACKWELL, P.J., and HUBER, J., concur. March 5, 2026
123,212 — In the Matter of E.C.S. and D.C.S., Alleged Deprived Children, Jesus Carrillo, Appellant, vs. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Texas County, Hon. Christine M. Larson, Trial Judge. Jesus Carrillo (Father) appeals an order terminating his parental rights to E.C.S. and D.C.S. On review of the briefing and the record on appeal, we find the trial court erred in finding Father waived his right to a jury trial by failing to appear at the termination hearing without ensuring Father was aware his absence could result in waiver. We, therefore, reverse the trial court’s Order Terminating Parental Rights and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HUBER, J.; BLACKWELL, P.J., and BARNES, J., concur. March 6, 2026
122,055 — Dana Hill, Plaintiff/Appellee, vs. EAN Holdings, LLC, d/b/a Enterprise Car Sales, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Sheila D. Stinson, Trial Judge. EAN Holdings, LLC, d/b/a Enterprise Car Sales (Enterprise) appeals the district court’s Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration. Based on the foregoing, we find the district court erred in denying Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration. The district court’s Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is reversed and this case is remanded with instructions to grant Enterprise’s motion to compel arbitration. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO COMPEL ARBITRATION. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HUBER, J.; BLACKWELL, P.J., and BARNES, J., concur. March 10, 2026
122,530 — In re the Marriage of: Jason J. Meadows, Petitioner/Appellant, vs. Amber C. Meadows, Respondent/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Bryan County, Hon. Mark R. Campbell, Trial Judge. Jason J. Meadows (Husband) appeals the trial court’s post-divorce judgment entered against Husband and in favor of Amber C. Meadows (Wife). Husband also appeals the trial court’s order granting Wife’s Motion for Sanctions and Motion for Attorney Fees relating to Husband’s failure to timely comply with discovery. Husband failed to present an appellate record suitable for appellate review. We are unable to discern if the trial court erred. We affirm the Court’s Order as to Respondent’s Motion for Sanctions and Motion for Attorney Fees, as well as the Judgment filed on August 19, 2024. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HUBER, J.; BLACKWELL, P.J., and BARNES, J., concur. March 10, 2026