Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | March 6, 2024
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
121,425 – In the Matter of T.R. and A.S., Alleged Deprived Children, Talon Rentie, Appellant, v. The State of Oklahoma. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Julie Doss, Trial Judge.In this action to terminate parental rights, Appellant, Talon Rentie, the biological Mother, appeals from the trial court’s order entered upon a jury verdict terminating her parental rights to T.R., born June 11, 2020, and A.S., born December 16, 2022, adjudicated deprived children. Mother’s parental rights to T.R. were terminated, after a jury trial, pursuant to 10A O.S. 2021 §1-4-904(B)(5) for Mother’s failure to correct the conditions of substance abuse, exposure to substance abuse, threat of harm and failure to maintain a safe and/or sanitary home; and §1-4-904(B)(17) because the child was younger than four (4) years of age at the time of placement and has been in foster care for at least six (6) of the twelve (12) months preceding the filing of the petition to terminate and the child cannot be safely returned to the home. Mother’s parental rights to A.S. were terminated under §1-4-904(B)(14) because the condition that led to the deprived adjudication has been the subject of a prior deprived adjudication of the child or a sibling of the child and the parent was given an opportunity to correct the conditions that led to the initial deprived child adjudication. The jury and the court also found termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interest. After reviewing the record, we affirm. Opinion by BELL, V.C.J.; SWINTON, P.J., and PRINCE, J., concur. February 28, 2024
121,725 – EJC Real Estate LLC, a/k/a El Suer Corral d/b/aI Midknight Rodeo, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. City of Tulsa, ex rel. Working in Neighborhoods Department, Defendant/ Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Douglas E. Drummond, Trial Judge. Plaintiff/Appellant, EJC Real Estate LLC, A/K/A El Super Corral D/B/A Midnight Rodeo (Company), appeals from the trial court’s order affirming the decision of the Tulsa City Council. The Tulsa City Council denied Company’s appeal from a violation of a City of Tulsa public nuisance ordinance. The trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law and determined the ordinance at issue was valid and constitutional, and that the denial of the appeal by the Tulsa City Council (Council) was neither contrary to law nor against the weight of the evidence. After reviewing the record and the trial court’s order, we AFFIRM under Rule 1.202(d), Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules, 12 O.S. 2021 Ch. 15, App. Opinion by BELL, V.C.J.; SWINTON, P.J., and PRINCE, J., concur. March 1, 2024
Division II
121,055 – Rebekah Kay Wilson, Petitioner/Appellee, v. Kristina Lea Williams, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Lynne McGuire, Trial Judge. Defendant Kristina Lea Williams appeals from an order of the trial court denying her motion to reconsider and vacate a final order of protection filed by her wife, Petitioner Rebekah Kay Wilson. From our review of the law and the record on appeal, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ms. Williams’ motion to reconsider and vacate the final order of protection and, therefore, affirm the trial court’s denial. We also grant Ms. Wilson’s motion for appeal-related attorney fees and remand for the trial court to determine the appropriate amount. AFFIRMED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by BARNES, C.J.; WISEMAN, P.J., concurs, and FISCHER, J., concurs in part, concurs in result. February 29, 2024
121,295 – Mike Ellis, Susan Anderson, and Sherrill Meyer, Plaintiffs/Appellants, vs. Norman & Edem, P.L.L.C., an Oklahoma Professional Limited Liability Company; Bradley E. Norman, an individual; John B. Norman, an individual; Scott B. Hawkins, an individual; John W. Norman, an individual; L. Mark Bonner, an individual; Emmanuel E. Edem, an individual; John W. Norman, Inc., an Oklahoma Corporation; and Rick Cunningham, an individual, Defendants/ Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Natalie Mai, Trial Judge. Plaintiffs appeal the trial court’s order granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Based on our review of the record, we conclude it was error to deny Plaintiffs’ request for additional time to respond to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. For this reason, we do not address the substance of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The order granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is reversed and the case is remanded with directions to allow Plaintiffs a reasonable time to respond to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; BARNES, C.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. March 5, 2024
Division III
120,528 – In the Matter of the Estate of Elroy Francis Hicks, Deceased, Jerry M. Turner and Jess Elroy Hicks, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Sharon Patanude, as Personal Representative for the Estate of Elroy F. Hicks, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Pottawatomie County, Oklahoma. Honorable John G. Canavan, Trial Judge. Appellants Jerry M. Turner and Jess Elroy Hicks (collectively Appellants) appeal from the trial court’s November 30, 2020 Order granting Objection to the Final Account and Petition for Distribution of the Estate, the January 21, 2022 Order determining the assets of the estate, the May 16, 2022 denial of Appellant’s Motion for New Trial, and the June 27, 2022 Order Allowing Final Account, Determining Heirs, and Final Decree of Distribution. After review of the record and applicable law, we AFFIRM IN PART AND REVERSE IN PART. Opinion by DOWNING, J.; MITCHELL, P.J., and GOREE, J., concur. March 01, 2024
121,070 – Robert Kyle Mullen, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Council on Law Enforcement Education and Training, Respondent/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Delaware County, Oklahoma. Honorable Jennifer McAffrey, Trial Judge. Appellant, Robert Mullen, seeks review of the February 6, 2023 order of the Delaware County District Court denying his motion to stay the agency’s final order revoking his law enforcement certification, a certification given to peace officers by the Council on Law Enforcement Education and Training. This court reverses the decision of the district court and remands the matter to conduct the disciplinary proceedings in accord with 70 O.S. Supp.2019 §3311(J)(8). REVERSED AND REMANDED. Opinion by GOREE, J.; MITCHELL, P.J., concurs and DOWNING, J., dissents. March 01, 2024
121,574 – Stella Oluwadele, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Vik Patel and Matthew Dellepere, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Kelly Greenough, Trial Judge. Appellant Stella Oluwadele (Stella) appeals from the trial court’s Final Order of Dismissal with Prejudice, Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider and Amended Motions to Reconsider, and Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Serve Supplemental Pleading. Stella filed a series of lawsuits beginning in 2016 involving a Christmas party at a hotel. Stella initially sued the host of the party. From there a series of lawsuits ensued against the hotel, Stratford House Enterprises, LLC (SH Enterprises). In this instant case, the third case involving the hotel, Stella sued Vik Patel, a member of SH Enterprises and Matthew Dellepere, Stella’s hired investigator with SIA Investigations (Appellees). The trial court granted Appellees’ Motion to Dismiss under the statute of limitations, denied all Stella’s motions to reconsider and denied Stella’s motion for supplemental pleading. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law this Court AFFIRMS. Opinion by DOWNING, J.; MITCHELL, P.J., and GOREE, J., concur. March 01, 2024
121,731 – Sonia Munoz, Personal Representative of the Estate of Jose Luis Calzada-Guiterrez, Deceased, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. City of Tulsa, a Municipal Corporation, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Caroline Wall, Trial Judge. Appellant, Sonia Munoz appeals the trial court’s Order granting Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of Appellee, City of Tulsa. Based on our review, we AFFIRM. Opinion by DOWNING, J.; MITCHELL, P.J., and GOREE, J., concur. March 01, 2024
Division IV
120,262 – In re the Marriage of Gregory P. Logan, Petitioner/Appellee, vs.
Debra B. Logan, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Gregory J. Ryan, Trial Judge. Debra B. Logan (Wife) appeals both of the trial court’s journal entries denying her two applications for attorney fees and costs and granting in part her third application for attorney fees and costs. Wife asserts the trial court abused its discretion by not awarding her additional fees and costs requested in her third application. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s denial of Wife’s first application. However, we reverse the court’s denial of the second application and its denial of the portion of the award Wife sought in the third application pertinent to this appeal. We remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED 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. March 5, 2024
120,609 (Companion with Case No. 121,108) – Professional Growers of Oklahoma, Inc., an Oklahoma corporation, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Oklahoma Cannabis Wholesale, a general partnership, Bryan Warren O’Rourke, a general partner, Sean Wayne O’Rourke, a general partner of Oklahoma Cannabis Wholesale, Defendants/Appellees, and Bryan Warren O’Rourke, and Michael William O’Rourke, Jr., Third-Party Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of Cleveland County, Hon. Michael Tupper, Trial Judge. Plaintiff Professional Growers of Oklahoma, Inc. (Plaintiff) appeals a judgment entered partially in favor of Oklahoma Cannabis Wholesale (OCW) and Bryan Warren O’Rourke (O’Rourke, or collectively, Defendants) following jury trial. Plaintiff sued Defendants under three legal theories arising from destruction of certain cannabis plants. The jury found in Plaintiff’s favor on its claims for breach of a joint venture agreement and breach of fiduciary duty and awarded damages but did not find in favor of Plaintiff on its malicious injury to property claim. The trial court entered judgment in Plaintiff’s favor on its two successful theories but awarded Defendant judgment on Plaintiff’s malicious injury property theory, as well as costs and attorney’s fees. We reverse that portion of the trial court’s judgment with directions to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff consistent with this opinion and reverse the trial court’s award of costs and attorney fees to Defendants. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, J.; HUBER, P.J., and BLACKWELL, J., concur. March 5, 2024
121,108 (Companion with Case No. 120,609) – Professional Growers of Oklahoma, Inc., an Oklahoma corporation, Plaintiff/Appellee, vs. Oklahoma Cannabis Wholesale, a general partnership, Bryan Warren O’Rourke, a general partner, and Sean Wayne O’Rourke, a general partner of Oklahoma Cannabis Wholesale, Defendants/Appellants, and Bryan Warren O’Rourke, Third-Party Plaintiff/Appellant, and Michael William O’Rourke, Jr., Third-Party Defendant. Appeal from the District Court of Cleveland County, Hon. Michael Tupper, Trial Judge. Defendants Oklahoma Cannabis Wholesale and Bryan Warren O’Rourke appeal an order granting Plaintiff Professional Growers of Oklahoma, Inc. $76,730 in attorney’s fees following judgment on its claim for breach of a joint venture agreement. Plaintiff contended during the fee proceedings that its theory for breach of the agreement constituted an open account or statement of account pursuant to 12 O.S.2021, § 936. However, Plaintiff pursued these damages at trial through its theory of breach of an express contract which did not provide for recovery of attorney’s fees in the event of a breach. We reverse that portion of the trial court’s Order awarding Plaintiff attorney’s fees. REVERSED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, J.; HUBER, P.J., and BLACKWELL, J., concur. March 5, 2024