Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | May 13, 2026
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
Division II
122,947 (Companion with Case No. 123,262) – Guardian Pharmacy, LLC Appellant, vs. Oklahoma Tax Commission, Appellee. Appeal from the Oklahoma Tax Commission. Guardian Pharmacy, LLC, appeals an order of the Oklahoma Tax Commission concluding it failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that its Oklahoma income should be apportioned as a unitary business instead of allocated. The foremost issue on review is whether the OTC’s order is supported by substantial evidence. After review, we conclude it is and affirm its order. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; HIXON, C.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. May 6, 2026
123,262 (Companion with Case No. 122,947) – Bindley Capital Partners I, LLC, Appellant, vs. Oklahoma Tax Commission, Appellee. Appeal from the Oklahoma Tax Commission. Bindley Capital Partners I, LLC, appeals an order of the Oklahoma Tax Commission concluding that it cannot apportion income it received from Guardian Pharmacy, LLC. In our Opinion in the companion case, Guardian Pharmacy, LLC v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, Case No. 122,947, issued today, we affirmed the OTC’s order holding that Guardian Pharmacy failed to present sufficient evidence to show it is a unitary business entitled to have its income apportioned rather than allocated. On this basis, we must also affirm the OTC’s decision disallowing apportioning rather than allocating pass-through income to Bindley as a partner of Guardian Pharmacy. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; HIXON, C.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. May 6, 2026
Division III
123,490 – Leslie Wayne Odom, Charles Edward Odom, Mitchel LaRue Odom, and David Earl Odom, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Patty Jo Roberts, John Mark Roberts, Stephen Wade Fontaine, Laurie Ann Fontaine, and The Estate of Bonnie Mae Odom, a deceased person, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Le Flore County, Oklahoma. Honorable Jon Sullivan, Trial Judge. Before the Court of Civil Appeals was the Plaintiff/Appellants’ appeal of an order by the District Court of Le Flore County granting summary judgment in favor of (a) Defendants Patty Jo and John Mark Roberts, and (b) Defendants Stephen and Laurie Ann Fontaine. Appellants are the grown children of Leslie Earl Odom, one of two settlors of a family trust to which they are beneficiaries. Plaintiffs alleged that the trust had been funded by Leslie Earl Odom and his wife Bonnie Mae Odom with certain real property, which had thereafter been improperly removed from the trust corpus by Bonnie Mae Odom after the trust became irrevocable. Plaintiffs sued Patty Jo Roberts, who is Bonnie Mae Odom’s daughter and successor trustee of the trust, on claims relating to breach of the trust. Plaintiffs also sought cancellation of the deeds conveying the real property since 2015, including the most recent conveyance to the Fontaines, who had purchased the real property from the Roberts. The Fontaine Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that they met the definition of bona fide purchaser. The district court granted this motion and, on appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. The Roberts Defendants also filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that because the conveyance removing the real property from the trust corpus occurred seven years before the Plaintiffs filed their lawsuit, Plaintiffs’ claims were outside of the statute of limitations. The district court agreed, ruling that Plaintiffs could not interpose the “discovery rule” under Oklahoma law because the deed conveying the real property from the trust was properly recorded with the county clerk and therefore put Plaintiffs on constructive notice of the transfer. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed, finding that the constructive notice resulting from the recording of instruments pursuant to 16 O.S. §16 was expressly limited to “subsequent purchasers, mortgagees, encumbrancers or creditors,” and therefore did not impute constructive notice of the transfer to Plaintiffs. Therefore, the district court’s rejection of Plaintiffs’ discovery-rule argument was erroneous, and summary judgment on their claims against the Roberts’ was reversed and remanded. Opinion by MITCHELL, J.; DOWNING, P.J., and SWINTON, J. (sitting by designation), concur. May 07, 2026
123,614 – In the Matter of: A.K., Alleged Deprived Child, Naomi Kitchkommie, Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Mary Ann Godsby, Trial Judge. Naomi Kitchkommie (Mother) appeals the trial court’s October 14, 2025, Order Terminating Parental Rights to A.K. In a consolidated appeal, Francis David King III (Father) also appeals the trial court’s October 14, 2025, Amended Order Terminating Parental Rights to A.K. We have reviewed the record and applicable law and are not persuaded by Mother’s or Father’s arguments. We AFFIRM. Opinion by DOWNING, P.J.; PRINCE, V.C.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. May 07, 2026
123,615 – In the Matter of: W.K., Alleged Deprived Child, Naomi Kitchkommie, Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Mary Ann Godsby, Trial Judge. Naomi Kitchkommie (Mother) appeals the trial court’s October 14, 2025, Order Terminating Parental Rights to W.K. In a consolidated appeal, Francis David King III (Father) also appeals the trial court’s October 14, 2025, Order Terminating Parental Rights to W.K. We have reviewed the record and applicable law and are not persuaded by Mother’s or Father’s arguments. We AFFIRM. Opinion by DOWNING, P.J.; PRINCE, V.C.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. May 07, 2026
Division IV
122,665 – Walter Otis Head, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. H&R Block, Inc., Defendant/Appellee. Proceeding to review an Order of the District Court of Bryan County, Hon. Abby Rogers, Associate District Judge. Walter Head appeals the court’s entry of judgment in favor of H&R Block Inc. and the court’s denial of his motion to correct. Upon review, the decisions of the trial court are affirmed. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV by BLACKWELL, P.J.; BARNES, J., and HUBER, J., concur. May 11, 2026