Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | March 29, 2023
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
Division II
120,013 – In re the Marriage of: Chad Patzke, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Cayla Patzke, Respondent/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Lynne McGuire, Trial Judge. Chad Patzke (Father) appeals certain provisions in the trial court’s decree of dissolution of marriage and its subsequent order awarding attorney fees to Cayla Patzke. Father challenges the trial court’s decision to allow him only supervised visitation based on its finding of domestic abuse and challenges the court’s child support and attorney fee awards. Father has failed to show the trial court abused its discretion or erred as a matter of law in ordering supervised visitation or awarding attorney fees and costs. The child support award is modified in accordance with this Opinion. Accordingly, the trial court’s decisions are affirmed as modified. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; BARNES, V.C.J., and HIXON, J., concur. March 22, 2023
119,848 – Christopher Williams, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Teresa Smith, Respondent/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Elizabeth Kerr, Trial Judge. Christopher Williams (Father) appeals the trial court’s Journal Entry of April 7, 2021, granting the relocation request of Teresa Smith (Mother). Father argues the trial court erred in granting Mother’s relocation request because Mother’s request to relocate was not made in good faith and was not in the child’s best interests. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, the trial court’s order granting Mother’s motion to relocate is affirmed. Father’s request for appeal-related attorney’s fees is denied. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by BARNES, V.C.J.; HIXON, J., concurs, and WISEMAN, P.J., dissents. March 24, 2023
120,607 – Roundtree Automotive Group, LLC, and State National Insurance Co., Petitioner, vs. John P. Rosson, and Oklahoma Workers’ Compensation Commission, Respondents. Appeal from the Workers’ Compensation Commission. Roundtree Automotive Group, LLC, and State National Insurance Company (collectively, Employer) seek review of the order of the Oklahoma Workers’ Compensation Commission en banc (Commission), affirming an Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) decision finding John P. Rosson (Claimant) sustained a compensable injury to the left hip with consequential injury to the left shoulder. We conclude that the Commission’s order affirming the ALJ’s decision that Claimant sustained a compensable injury to his left hip with consequential injury to his left shoulder is supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Pursuant to the applicable standard of review, we sustain the Commission’s order. SUSTAINED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by HIXON, J.; BARNES, V.C.J., and WISEMAN, P.J., concur. March 24, 2023
120,601 – In the Matter of M.T., an Adjudicated Deprived Child, Amari Thompson, Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Lydia Green, Trial Judge. Amari Thompson (Mother) appeals a trial court order entered after a jury verdict terminating her parental rights to MT. The issue is whether the State of Oklahoma proved by clear and convincing evidence that Mother failed to correct the conditions that led to MT being adjudicated deprived and that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interests, or whether any other trial court error mandates reversal. After careful review of the record and applicable law, we conclude that clear and convincing evidence firmly supports the trial court’s decision that Mother’s parental rights should be terminated. State met its burden, and seeing no other error, we affirm the trial court’s orders. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; BARNES, V.C.J., and HIXON, J., concur. March 28, 2023
Division III
119,636 – Johnny Baggs, Lara Baggs, Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. Kathy Louis Martin, Defendant/Appellant, and Steven Brad Noah, and Claudie Ray Noah, Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of Latimer County, Oklahoma. Honorable Bill D. Welch, Trial Judge. Defendant/Appellant, Kathie Louis Martin, appeals from the district court’s judgment declaring Plaintiffs/Appellees, Johnny Baggs and Lara Baggs, Husband and Wife, are entitled to a road easement upon a portion of the section‑line running through Defendant’s property. Plaintiffs own property in Section 20, Township 6 North, Range 21 East of the Indian Base and Meridian, Latimer County. Defendant owns property in Sections 21 and 28, Township 6 North, Range 21 East of the Indian Base and Meridian, Latimer County. In order to access their property, Plaintiffs sought declaratory relief pursuant to 69 O.S. 2021 §1201 to construct a road upon one‑quarter (¼) of a mile of the section line that runs between Sections 21 and 28. Plaintiffs desired to construct a road from the southeast corner of their property along this proposed route to the end of an existing road that runs along the subject section line. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we cannot find the district court erred and AFFIRM the judgment. Opinion by BELL, J.; MITCHELL, C.J., and PRINCE, P.J., concur. March 24, 2023
120,229 – Signature Leasing, LLC, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Buyer’s Group, L.L.C., and Buyer’s Group Operating Company, Inc., Defendants/Appellants, and Williams & Williams Marketing Services, Inc., Defendant. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Douglas E. Drummond, Trial Judge. Plaintiff/Appellee Signature Leasing, LLC (Purchaser) rescinded a contract to purchase the Indian Springs Country Club in Broken Arrow from owners Defendants/Appellants Buyer’s Group, LLC and Buyer’s Group Operating Company, INC. (Sellers) following a public auction conducted by Defendant Williams & Williams (Broker). Purchaser brought an action against Broker and Sellers seeking declaratory judgment and alleging fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, and willful deceit. Following contentious litigation, including two interlocutory appeals, nearly a decade later the case was submitted to binding arbitration. The arbitrator found in favor of Sellers and Broker and awarded damages, however, the arbitrator concluded the contract did not provide for prejudgment interest. Sellers and Broker filed a motion in district court asserting the arbitrator exceeded her authority and seeking to modify the award by adding prejudgment interest in the amount of $1,303,043.31. The question presented on appeal is whether the district court committed error by affirming the arbitration order. After de novo review, we AFFIRM the district court’s order finding the appellant failed to show the arbitrator exceeded her authority in declining to award prejudgment interest based on the parties’ contractual language. Opinion by MITCHELL, C.J.; PRINCE, P.J., and BELL, J., concur. March 24, 2023
120,502 – In Re the Marriage of: Lyn G. Putnam, Petitioner/Appellee, v. James A. Putnam, Jr., Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Payne County, Oklahoma. Honorable Michael Kulling, Trial Judge. Respondent/Appellant, James A. Putnam, Jr. (“Husband”), appeals a Decree of Divorce and Dissolution of Marriage which granted the Petitioner/Appellee, Lyn G. Putnam (“Wife”), a dissolution of marriage, over his objection, on the ground of incompatibility. After Wife filed a Petition asserting that she should be granted a divorce on the ground of incompatibility, Husband objected and claimed that the Parties were not incompatible. He sought a continuation of the marriage. The trial court held a hearing on the sole issue of whether or not Wife should be granted a dissolution of marriage. The trial court found that Wife established the ground of incompatibility for dissolution of the Parties’ marriage and granted her request for a divorce. Husband commenced this appeal and claims that the trial court committed error when it granted the divorce because there was no objective evidence of incompatibility. We have reviewed the record and applicable law and find that the trial court committed no error. Therefore, the Decree of Divorce and Dissolution of Marriage is AFFIRMED. Opinion by PRINCE, P.J.; MITCHELL, C.J., and BELL, J., concur. March 24, 2023
120,554 – In Re the Matter of: A.C., R.C., P.D., S.D., L.W., and J.W., Deprived Children, Amanda Dunham, Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Martha Rupp Carter, Trial Judge. Appellant, Amanda Dunham (“Mother”), appeals a jury verdict terminating her parental rights to six children, A.C., R.C., P.D., S.D., L.W., and J.W., on the ground of heinous and shocking abuse or neglect or failure to protect the children from heinous and shocking abuse or neglect under 10A O.S. § 1‑4‑904(B)(9). The children were taken into emergency custody after a referral was made to the Department of Human Services regarding allegations of sexual abuse. Appellee, the State of Oklahoma, filed a Petition seeking immediate termination of Mother’s parental rights as a result of her failure to protect her children from heinous and shocking sexual abuse by her live‑in boyfriend, and father of two of her children, Jonathan Campbell. Mother continued to live with Mr. Campbell for approximately a year and a half after the referral was made to DHS, until the day before trial commenced. A jury returned a unanimous verdict terminating Mother’s parental rights as to all six children. Mother appeals, arguing that the State did not satisfy its burden of proof, that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict that termination was in the children’s best interests, that hearsay testimony was improperly admitted into evidence, that the children’s attorney had a conflict of interest, and that the children’s attorney was ineffective. We have canvassed the record and reviewed applicable law and find that the State satisfied its burden and the verdict was proper. Therefore, the “Order Terminating Parental Rights ICWA Compliant”, is AFFIRMED. Opinion by PRINCE, P.J.; MITCHELL, C.J., and BELL, J., concur.
Division IV