Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | March 8, 2023
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
120,087 – Daxton Holland, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Wanda Brisco, Deceased, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Westbrook Healtcare, Inc., and Elmbrook Management Company, Defendants/Appellants. Appeal from the District Court of Jefferson County, Oklahoma. Honorable Dennis L. Gay, Trial Judge. Defendants/Appellants Westbrook Healthcare, Inc., (Nursing Home) and Elmbrook Management Company (Management Company) (collectively, Appellants), appeal from the denial of their motion for a new trial following a jury verdict in favor of Plaintiff/Appellee Daxton Holland, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Wanda Brisco, (Personal Representative). Brisco died after choking on food in Nursing Home’s dining room. Personal Representative alleged Appellants’ negligence caused Brisco’s death. The jury awarded $1,000,000 in actual damages, finding Management Company was 90% liable and Nursing Home was 10% liable. The jury declined to award punitive damages. The trial court later denied Appellants’ Motion to Vacate or Modify Judgment and/or for New Trial. Appellants appeal the denial of that motion. Competent evidence supports the verdict and we find no abuse of discretion in the challenged evidentiary rulings. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellants’ motion for new trial and we therefore affirm. Opinion by SWINTON, J.; GOREE, P.J., concurs and DOWNING, J., dissents. March 3, 2023
120,442 – Blue Stem Escrow & Title, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company, Plaintiff, v. Maveric Mini-Marts, Inc., an Oklahoma corporation; Lionel Harris Oil Company, Inc., an Oklahoma corporation; The Lionel, and Bea Harris Foundation, an Oklahoma foundation, Defendant, First Texas Acquisitions, LLC, a Texas limited liability company, Defendant/Cross-Claimant/Cross-Defendant/Appellant, Craig C, Stavinoha, Inc., a Texas corporation, Defendant, Sohail Yoonas, an individual, Defendant/Cross-Claimant/Cross-Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Caroline Wall, Trial Judge. First Texas Acquisitions, LLC, (FTA or Appellant) appeals the trial court’s May 3, 2022 Journal Entry of Judgment granting summary judgment in favor of Sohail Yoonas (Yoonas or Appellee). Based on our review, we AFFIRM. Opinion by DOWNING, J.; GOREE, P.J., and SWINTON, J., concurs. March 3, 2023
120,867 – Mark Stoddard, an individual, Plaintiff/Appellant, Lava Cable, LLC, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff, v. Michelle Stoddard, an individual, John Davis, an individual, Defendants/Appellees, and Jeffrey A. Hensley, an individual and Hensley Legal Services, PLLC, an Oklahoma Professional Limited Liability Company, Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Daman H. Cantrell, Trial Judge. Appellant, Mark Stoddard, appeals from the trial court’s granting of Summary Judgment in the above matter based on the statute of limitations. Appellant’s lawsuit against his ex-father-in-law Appellee, John Davis, alleged that Appellee tortiously interfered with a Preliminary Settlement Agreement between Appellant and his ex-wife Michelle Stoddard, that was executed on June 18, 2014. In the agreement, Ms. Stoddard agreed Appellant would retain a family business. Appellant claimed Ms. Stoddard backed out of the agreement the week following June 18, 2014, and that Appellee was the cause. Appellant and Ms. Stoddard’s divorce was ultimately finalized and filed in 2017. Appellant did not seek redress until May 13, 2021. Upon review of the record before us, we AFFIRM. Opinion by DOWNING, J., GOREE, P.J., and SWINTON, J., concur. March 3, 2023
Division II
120,513 – In the Matter of F.L., an Alleged Deprived Child, Gene Long, Appellant, vs. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Mark McCormick, Trial Judge. Gene Long (Father) appeals the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights to the minor child, F.L. Father alleges State failed to meet its burden to adjudicate the child deprived on the ground of failure to protect; failed to meet its burden to terminate his rights under 10A O.S. Supp.2021, § 1-4-904(B)(12) (incarceration); and failed to meet its burden of showing the termination was in the child’s best interests. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the order. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by HIXON, J.; BARNES, V.C.J., and WISEMAN, P.J., concur. March 3, 2023
119,433 – In the Matter of the Estate of: Bobby Jo Foreman, Sr., Deceased Heather Renee Bumgarner ex rel. K.L.K.F., Minor Heir of the Estate of Bobby Jo Foreman, Sr., Deceased, Appellant, v. Bobby Jo Foreman, Jr., and Jeannia Shalaine Foreman, Personal Representatives of the Estate of Bobby Jo Foreman, Sr., Deceased, Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of McIntosh County, Hon. Brendon Bridges, Trial Judge. In this probate proceeding, Heather Renee Bumgarner, on behalf of K.L.K.F., Minor Heir of the Estate of Bobby Jo Foreman, Sr., Deceased, (Appellant) appeals from the district court’s Redacted Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Order Allowing Final Account, and Decree of Distribution (Order). Based on our review of the appellate record, we conclude the trial court’s Order is not clearly against the weight of the evidence as to its determinations of what the assets of the estate were at decedent’s death, of the propriety of the expenditures made by Personal Representatives, and of the payments made to some creditors. We further conclude the trial court’s determination that Appellees did not purposely hide assets of the estate is not clearly against the weight of the evidence. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Appellant’s objections and exceptions and in granting Appellees’ petition for final account and distribution of assets to the heirs. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by BARNES, V.C.J.; BLACKWELL, J. (sitting by designation), concurs, and WISEMAN, P.J., dissents. March 6, 2023
Division III
120,144 – In Re The Marriage Of Bliss: Chelsea Bliss, now Sursa, Petitioner/Appellant, V. Austin Bliss, Respondent/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Washington County, Oklahoma. Honorable Russell Vaclaw, Trial Judge. Petitioner/Appellant, Chelsea Bliss, now Sursa (“Mother”), appeals an Order Denying Relocation. Mother and the Respondent/Appellee, Austin Bliss (“Father”), are the parents of one minor child. They were divorced during 2013 and, in the Decree, they were awarded joint custody with a 50/50 split in time with the child. Mother was designated as the “Primary Custodian”. During June, 2021, Mother filed a Notice of Proposed Relocation and stated her intention to move from Bartlesville, Oklahoma, to Blanchard, Oklahoma, with the minor child. Father objected to the proposed relocation and the trial court held a hearing on the limited issue of whether Mother’s proposed relocation was made in good faith. The trial court held that the relocation notice was not made in good faith and denied Mother’s request to relocate with the child. We have reviewed the record and applicable law and find that the trial court should have determined which parent was the primary physical custodian, in accordance with the holding of Boatman v. Boatman, 2017 OK 27, 404 P.3d 822, before it reached the good faith issue. The requirement set forth in Boatman is mandatory in joint custody situations where there is no primary physical custodian. Therefore, we find that the Order Denying Relocation should be REVERSED, and the matter should be REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. Opinion by PRINCE, P.J.; MITCHELL, C.J., concurs, and BELL, J., concurs in result. March 3, 2023
120,346 – William Coyle Coble, Petitioner, V. Multiple Injury Trust Fund and The Oklahoma Workers’ Compensation Commission, Respondents. Proceeding to review an order of The Workers’ Compensation Commission. Petitioner, William Coyle Coble (Claimant), seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Commission affirming a decision of an administrative law judge (ALJ) which denied Claimant’s request for permanent total disability (PTD) benefits against the Multiple Injury Trust Fund (MITF). The sole issue on appeal is whether sufficient evidence supports the Commission’s decision that Claimant is not permanently and totally disabled due to a combination of his injuries. The ALJ and Commission found Claimant’s PTD is due to his last injury alone. We hold the record contains substantial evidence to support the Commission’s order and that the order is otherwise free of error. AFFIRMED. Opinion by BELL, J.; MITCHELL, C.J., and PRINCE, P.J., concur. March 3, 2023
120,580 – In the Matter of D.L. and J.R., Alleged Deprived Children, Jordan Jordan, Appellant, V. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Martha Rupp Carter, Trial Judge. In this action to terminate parental rights, Appellant, Jordan Jordan, the biological mother (Mother), appeals from the trial court’s order entered upon a jury verdict terminating her parental rights to her minor children, D.L., born September 5, 2014, and J.R., born March 30, 2018, deprived children. Mother’s parental rights to both children were terminated, after a multi‑day jury trial, pursuant to 10A O.S. 2021 §1‑4‑904(B)(5) for failure to correct the conditions of substance abuse, neglect, threat of harm, and failure to provide a safe and stable home; and pursuant to §1‑4‑904(B)(7) for Mother’s willful failure to support the children. Mother’s parental rights to J.R., were terminated pursuant to 10A O.S. 2021 §1‑4‑904(B)(17) because J.R. was younger than four (4) years of age at the time of placement and has been in foster care for six (6) out of the twelve (12) months preceding the filing of the petition to terminate. The court found J.R. was an Indian Child under the Oklahoma Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 10 O.S. 2021 §40.1 et seq. The Cherokee Nation intervened and recommended the termination of Mother’s parental rights to J.R. The trial court found State demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt by the testimony of a qualified witness that Mother’s continued custody of J.R. is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage/harm to the child and that active efforts to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs to prevent the breakup of the Indian family were made and have proven unsuccessful. The court also found by clear and convincing evidence that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests. After reviewing the record, we AFFIRM. Opinion by BELL, J.; MITCHELL, C.J., and PRINCE, P.J., concur. March 3, 2023
Division IV