Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | March 25, 2026
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
122,996 – In the Matter of B.G., Alleged Deprived Child, Casey Gibson, Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Theresa Dreiling, Trial Judge. The trial court ordered Father’s parental rights terminated pursuant to 10A O.S. §1-4-904(B)(5) and (17) because it is in the best interest of Child. This Court affirms the order of the trial court. Opinion by GOREE, J.; SWINTON, P.J., and BELL, J., concur. March 20, 2026
123,248 – Johanna M. Aaron, Petitioner/Appellee/Counter-Appellant, v. David E. Aaron, Respondent/Appellant/Counter-Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Tanya Wilson, Trial Judge. Petitioner/Appellee/Counter-Appellant, Johanna M. Aaron (Wife), and Respondent/Appellant/Counter-Appellee, David E. Aaron (Husband), both appeal from the trial court’s decree of dissolution of marriage. Wife asserts the trial court erred when it determined the parties’ marital home located in Bixby, Oklahoma, was Husband’s separate property. Husband asserts the trial court erred when it calculated and awarded Wife one-half of the enhanced value of the marital home. This Court holds the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it classified the martial home as Husband’s separate property and when it determined the home’s value enhanced during the marriage due to the parties’ joint endeavors. However, the trial court erred and abused its discretion when it calculated the marital estate’s divisible interest in the home’s enhanced value. The trial court’s decree is affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded. On remand, the trial court is directed to award Wife $65,815.51 as her equitable share of the marital estate’s interest in the home’s equity. Opinion by BELL, J.; SWINTON, P.J., and GOREE, J., concur. March 20, 2026
123,448 – James Rea, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Oklahoma For Positive Change PAC, et. al., Defendants, Gail Harjo, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Kelly Greenough, Trial Judge. Plaintiff/Appellee, James Rea, a public official and a registered Democrat, was unsuccessful in his campaign to be elected as a County Commissioner for Tulsa County, District 2. Plaintiff filed a petition against Defendant/Appellant, Gail Harjo (Defendant) and other defendants for fraud, libel and conspiracy related to the defendants’ dissemination of inflammatory political postcards discrediting Plaintiff. The postcards were mailed to county residents prior to the election. The postcards stated, “Something is off about Jim Rea,” because “his boss pays a political consulting company;” associated Plaintiff with “Ties to Maga Trump Consultants;” and implied Plaintiff was involved with an alleged sexual assault at the Tulsa County Juvenile Justice center because Plaintiff was a Tulsa County employee. The postcards also incorrectly stated Plaintiff was a “bankruptcy and contract lawyer.” Defendant moved to dismiss the petition under the Oklahoma Citizens Participation Act, 12 O.S. 2021 §1430-1440 (OCPA). The trial court dismissed Plaintiff’s fraud claim but denied the motion with respect to Plaintiff’s libel and conspiracy claims. Defendant appealed. This Court affirms the trial court’s dismissal of the fraud claim. This Court holds Plaintiff failed to provide clear and specific evidence of Defendant’s “actual malice” as required by Herbert v. Oklahoma Christian Coalition, 1999 OK 90, 992 P.2d 322, and reverses the trial court’s order denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss the libel and conspiracy claims. This matter is remanded to the trial court to enter an order dismissing all of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Harjo with prejudice. Opinion by BELL, J.; SWINTON, P.J., and GOREE, J., concur. March 20, 2026
122,967 – Jarrin Jackson, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Taylor Burke, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Tracy Priddy, Trial Judge. The court’s order for sanctions against the pro se plaintiff is not prohibited by the Oklahoma Constitution. AFFIRMED. Opinion by GOREE, J.; SWINTON, P.J., and BELL, J., concur. March 20, 2026
Division II
122,451 – In the Matter of the Estate of David M. Kroier, Deceased: David Lemke, Appellant, vs. Eric Kroier and Aaron Kroier, Appellees. Proceeding to review an Order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Thomas C. Riesen, Special Judge. David Lemke, personal representative and friend of the decedent, David Kroier, appeals the trial court’s order determining that the decedent’s holographic will was wholly inconsistent with his previous attested will. Upon review, wereverse the order of the trial court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II (2025) by BLACKWELL, J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. March 18, 2026
121,664 – Jamie C. McDonald, now Bond, Petitioner /Appellant, vs. Alex M. McDonald, Respondent/Appellee. Proceeding to review an Order of the District Court of Cleveland County, Hon. Lori Puckett, Trial Judge. Jamie C. McDonald, now Bond (Mother) appeals from the district court’s order awarding her attorney fees in the amount of $5,000.00 against Alex M. McDonald (Father), though she requested an award of attorney fees and costs totaling $62,417.06. Mother sought the award pursuant to 43 O.S.2021 § 110(E), after prevailing on a motion to modify Father’s monthly child support obligation. The district court only granted Mother a portion of her requested award based on a finding that her discovery efforts, aimed at determining the amount of Father’s gross monthly income, were unnecessary and vexatious. The court also based the reduced award on certain findings about the parties’ payment arrangements with their respective attorneys. The district court’s decision was based on erroneous conclusions of law and factual findings with no rational basis in the record. Therefore, we reverse the order appealed and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II by FISCHER, J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and HIXON, C.J., concur. March 18, 2026
122,338 — Boevers Homes, LLC, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. The City of Piedmont, Oklahoma, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of CanadianCounty, Hon. Paul Hesse, Trial Judge. Plaintiff Boevers Homes, LLC (Boevers) appeals an order denying a multi-topic or omnibus motion seeking relief from various orders arising from Defendant City of Piedmont’s (City) attempt to collect upon an attorneys’ fee award against Boevers, and related prejudgment garnishment. On review of the law, the briefing and the record on appeal, we find that City failed to file an undertaking required by 12 O.S.2021, § 1172.1(4), and that the trial court therefore lacked jurisdiction to issue garnishment summons prior to judgment. We find the trial court erred by failing to grant Boevers’ motion to dissolve or discharge and direct the trial court to discharge or dissolve the garnishment. We decline to consider Boevers’ appeal of the trial court’s denial of damages for wrongful garnishment because the parties have not had opportunity to address the basis for our determination the garnishment must be dissolved or discharged. We find the remainder of the trial court’s order are interlocutory and any appeal is premature and is dismissed. REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by HIXON, C.J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. March 19, 2026
123,228 — Michael Parks, individually, Jennifer Parks, individually and on behalf of L.P. and N.P., Minor Children, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Genesis Health Club Broken Arrow, LLC, Genesis Acquisition Inc., Christopher Stephenson, and John Doe Electrical Contractor, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of TulsaCounty, Oklahoma. Honorable Kelly Greenough, Trial Judge. Before the Court of Civil Appeals was the order of the district court dismissing the Amended Petition of Plaintiffs/Appellants Michael Parks, Jennifer Parks and their minor children asserting causes of action for negligence and loss of consortium against Defendants/Appellees Genesis Health Club Broken Arrow, LLC, Genesis Acquisition, Inc., Christopher Stephenson (collectively, “Genesis”). The claim arose from Mr. Parks’ injuries sustained when plugging a charging cable into a damaged and faulty electrical outlet in a basketball gym in Genesis’ health club. The Amended Petition also asserted a professional negligence against a John Doe electrical contractor that was not the subject of the district court’s order of dismissal. Genesis’ Motion to Dismiss argued that the damaged and faulty condition of the outlet was “open and obvious,” thereby negating any duty owed to Mr. Parks as an invitee, and therefore the Amended Petition failed to state a claim. Secondarily, Genesis argued that the minor children’s loss of consortium claim failed as a matter of law because it was not alleged that the loss of Mr. Parks’ love, care, companionship and guidance was permanent. On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals reversed the district court’s dismissal with respect to the negligence claim, finding that the Amended Petition’s factual allegations sufficiently pleaded that the dangerous condition created by the faulty electrical outlet was hidden in nature, and that in any event Genesis – as invitor – owed the additional duty to an invitee to take reasonable care to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition, both of which precluded dismissal for failure to state a claim. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the minor children’s loss of consortium claim because the Amended Petition did not allege the permanent disability of a parent necessary to state such a claim under Oklahoma law. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED. Opinion by MITCHELL,J.; PRINCE, V.C.J., concurs and DOWNING, P.J., dissents. March 19, 2026
Division III
123,109 — In Re the Marriage of: Stephanie Jones, Petitioner/Appellee, v. Stephen Jones, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Bryan County, Oklahoma. Honorable Abby C. Rogers, Trial Judge. Respondent/Appellant, Stephen Jones (“Husband”) appeals the denial of his claim for restitutionary alimony and the denial of his request for attorney fees. Husband and the Petitioner/Appellee, Stephanie Jones (“Wife”) were married for a period of approximately twelve and one-half (12½) years when Wife filed her Petition for Dissolution of Marriage. Husband claimed that he was entitled to an award of restitutionary alimony pursuant to the holding in Hubbard v. Hubbard, 1979 OK 154, 603 P.2d 747, so that he could receive a return on his investment in Wife’s education and training to become a physician. Husband also sought an award of attorney fees in the amount of approximately $64,000.00. The trial court denied Husband’s requests for relief and, after a review of the record, we AFFIRM. Opinion by PRINCE, V.C.J.; DOWNING, P.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. March 20, 2026
Division IV