Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | May 25, 2022
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
119,899 – Waneva Morris, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Britey, LLC, and Oklahoma Limited Company and Keith Butler, Defendents/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Pottawatomie County, Oklahoma. Honorable John G. Canavan, Judge. Plaintiff/Appellant, Waneva Morris, appeals from the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of Defendants/Appellees, Britey, LLC, and Keith Butler, in this action concerning the purchase of real property. Plaintiff owned two adjacent tracts of land. One tract consisted of twenty (20) acres and a house, which was encumbered by a mortgage (the Mortgaged Property), and the other tract contained forty (40) unencumbered acres (the Unencumbered Property). The entire sixty (60) acres are hereafter referred to as the Subject Property. The bank instituted foreclosure proceedings against the Mortgaged Property in February 2016 and thereafter obtained judgment. At the January 18, 2017, Sheriff’s Sale, the highest bidder bid $175,000.00. Before the Sheriff’s Sale was confirmed, Butler contacted Plaintiff and negotiated to purchase the entire Subject Property for $167,283.77, the exact amount owed under mortgage. The material aspects of the agreement set forth in the Contract included the purchase price, legal description of the property and the number of acres being conveyed. Plaintiff executed the Contract and a deed to the full sixty (60) acres in favor of Defendant Britey LLC, a company owned by Butler’s wife. Defendant wired the full purchase price to Plaintiff’s bank account and she redeemed the mortgage. As part of the parties’ transaction but not included in the written Contract, Butler orally agreed to allow Plaintiff to remain living on the Subject Property rent‑free for three (3) years with an option to pay reduced rent for two (2) additional years thereafter. Butler valued the Unencumbered Property at $40,000.00 and the home rental at $1,250.00 per month (with a reduced rate of $1,000.00 per month for years 4 & 5). It is undisputed Plaintiff continued to live in the house rent‑free for the next three (3) years. Plaintiff filed the instant suit shortly thereafter, asserting five (5) causes of action: Quiet title, fraud, duress, lack of consideration and lack of capacity. Defendants filed a counterclaim to quiet title in their favor. Plaintiff’s appeal attacks the trial court’s ruling only with respect to her fraud claim. We hold Plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case of either actual or constructive fraud. Plaintiff has not shown Defendants intentionally deceived her, misrepresented any facts or breached any duty, nor has Plaintiff demonstrated she suffered any prejudice. AFFIRMED. Opinion by BELL, P.J.; GOREE, J., and SWINTON, J. (sitting by designation), concur. May 20, 2022
119,624 – Dustin Donley Construction Services, LLC, Plaintiff/Appellee/Counter-Appellant, v. Jones Energy, LLC, Defendant/Appellant/Counter-Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Woodward County, Oklahoma. Honorable Justin P. Eilers, Trial Judge. Jones Energy, LLC, (Defendant/Appellant/Counter-Appellee) solicited bids for the construction of multiple drilling pads for oil and gas wells. Dustin Donley Construction Services, LLC, (Plaintiff/Appellee/Counter-Appellant) submitted a single bid for all of the sites as a bundle. Donley commenced work but only completed a few of the sites because Jones was unable to obtain needed financing. Donley sued Jones for breaching a contract as to the unmaterialized sites and for constructive fraud for failing to disclose its economic trouble. We hold a promise to perform services in exchange for payment is valid consideration. We also hold Jones undertook no duty to disclose its internal finances where both parties were experienced in the subject matter of the agreement, they were equal in bargaining power, and there was no fiduciary or confidential relationship. The judgment for breach of contract is affirmed and the judgment for constructive fraud is reversed. Opinion by GOREE, J.; BELL, P.J., and SWINTON, J., (sitting by designation) concur. May 18, 2022
119,740 – Chantene Morris, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Rachel Weems, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable William J. Musseman, Trial Judge. Plaintiff/Appellant, Chantene Morris, brought suit for personal injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident admittedly caused by Defendant/Appellee, Rachel Weems. The jury returned a verdict equal to the total medical bills claimed by Plaintiff and Plaintiff appeals. The evidence was sufficient to create a reasonable inference that some of the medical bills sought were unnecessary or for injuries unrelated to the accident. Therefore, the fact that the verdict was equivalent to the sum of the medical bills did not require the conclusion that the jury had awarded nothing for Plaintiff’s pain and suffering. The verdict is valid and the judgment is affirmed. Opinion by GOREE, J.; BELL, P.J., and SWINTON, J., (sitting by designation) concur. May 18, 2022
119,319 – In Re The Marriage of: Stephanie Bills, Petitioner/Appellee, v. Jay Bills, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Charles Kevin Morrison, Trial Judge. In this dissolution of marriage proceeding, Respondent/Appellant, Jay Bills (Husband), appeals from portions of the trial court’s decree of dissolution of marriage. Husband challenges the court’s determination that Husband depleted the marital estate by $92,500.00 and the court’s award of this amount to Husband as a portion of his equitable share of the marital estate. Husband also appeals from the court’s decision to impute Husband’s income at $6,400.00 per month; its determination that the separate value of the E trade account, owned by Petitioner/Appellee, Stephanie Bills (Wife), prior to marriage, was $71,320.00; and the court’s decision to deny Husband’s request for his attorney fees. Wife counter-appeals from the trial court’s decision to deny her request for attorney fees. After reviewing the record, we cannot find the trial court abused its discretion and affirm the trial court’s decree and order denying attorney fees. Opinion by BELL, P.J.; GOREE, J., and SWINTON, J., (sitting by designation) concur. May 23, 2022
Division II
118,385 – Shuck Farms, LLC, a Texas Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Marc Tuicchi and Francine Turichi, Husband and Wife, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Atoka County, Hon. Paula Inge, Trial Judge. Schuck Farms, LLC, appeals the denial by the district court of certain claimed damages resulting from Schuck being forced to seek specific performance of a contract for real property. On review, we affirm the challenged decisions of the district court. The trial court’s findings were not contrary to the weight of evidence, and there was no contractual or statutory basis for fees. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II by BLACKWELL, J.; BARNES, J., concurs, and WISEMAN, P.J., concurs in part and dissents in part. May 20, 2022
119,165 – In re the Marriage of: Tammy Eversole, Petitioner/Appellee, vs. Matt Torres, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Comanche County, Hon. Gerald F. Neuwirth, Trial Judge. The Respondent/Appellant, Matt Torres, former husband of the Petitioner/Appellee, Tammy Eversole, and custodial parent of their minor child, appeals the district court’s denial of Torres’s request to relocate with the child to Florida. On review, we determine that the trial court’s determination that moving the child to Florida was against his best interests was not clearly contrary to the weight of the evidence. Thus, the ruling of the district court is affirmed. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II by BLACKWELL, J.; RAPP, J., concurs, and WISEMAN, P.J., dissents. May 19, 2022
119,598 – W.H. Davis Family Limited Partnership and William H. Davis, Plaintiffs/Appellants, vs. Anchor Energy, LLC, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from Order of the District Court of Blaine County, Oklahoma, Hon. Allison M. Lafferty, Trial Judge. W.H. Davis Family Limited Partnership and William H. Davis, individually, (collectively, “Davis”), appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Anchor Energy, LLC. Davis argues on appeal that material factual issues remain as to whether an enforceable contract existed between the two parties. On review, we find that the undisputed facts demonstrate that Anchor timely terminated the contract, and therefore affirm. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II by BLACKWELL, J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and RAPP, J., concur. May 19, 2022
119,733 – Zana Williams, Plaintiff/Appellee, vs. Donald Albert Williams, individually; Donald Albert Williams, Trustee of the Durham Living Trust; LaFayette Durham, individually; and LaFayette Durham, Trustee of the Durham Living Trust, Defendants/Appellants. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Cindy H. Truong, Trial Judge. Donald Williams and Lafayette Durham, individually and as trustees (hereinafter, “defendants”), appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Zana Williams, which ordered the defendants to pay $13,094.42 to Zana to satisfy the remaining distribution from a trust account of which Donald and Lafayette served as co-trustees. On appeal, we vacate the district court’s summary judgment because material questions of fact exist as to how much the trust still owes Zana, if anything. Vacated and Remanded. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II by BLACKWELL, J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and RAPP, J., concur. May 19, 2022
119,396 – Gardner Tanenbaumm, LLC and Lincoln Road Apartments II, LLC, Plaintiff/Appellants/Counter-Appellees, vs. The Benham Companies, LLC; SAIC Energy Environment & Infrastructure, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and SAIC Constructors, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company, Defendants/Appellees/Counter-Appellants. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Thomas E. Prince, Trial Judge. The plaintiffs, Gardner Tanenbaum, LLC, and Lincoln Road Apartments II, LLC (collectively, “Tanenbaum”), appeal a summary judgment granted to defendants, The Benham Companies, LLC, SAIC Energy Environment & Infrastructure, LLC, and SAIC Constructors, LLC (collectively, “Benham”). Tanenbaum argues that the district court erred in finding that Tanenbaum had no recoverable damages. We find that Tanebaum’s claims for lawsuit and settlement damages are indeed recoverable, though disgorgement is unavailable. Accordingly, the trial court’s judgment against Tanenbaum is vacated and the matter is remanded for further proceedings. Benham’s counter-appeal, which argues that the trial court should have granted a separately filed motion for summary judgment in which Benham urges judgment on a separate theory, is dismissed. VACATED AND REMANDED; COUNTER-APPEAL DISMISSED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II by BLACKWELL, J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and RAPP, J., concur. May 19, 2022
Division III
119,608 – CCL RANCH PROPERTIES, LLC, NIGHTINGALE RANCH & FARM, LLC, SHARP MORTGAGE COMPANY, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, DAVID HAAG, JULIE HAAG, CHRISTY NIGHTINGALE LINDSEY, JOHN LINDSEY, AND GEORGE SHARP, Plaintiffs/Appellees v. CARDINAL INDUSTRIES, LLC AND SUMMIT PROPERTIES, INC., Defendants/Appellants, CITY OF GLENPOOL, Defendant. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Kelly Greenough, Trial Judge. Developers and the City of Glenpool appeal from the trial court’s order granting declaratory judgement in favor of concerned residents in their action challenging Glenpool’s rezoning of Developers’ property through a planned unit development. There are two issues on appeal: whether Glenpool and Developers complied with mandatory notice requirements, and whether rezoning violates Glenpool’s comprehensive plan, zoning ordinances, and state law. After de novo review, we affirm the trial court’s finding that the notice was inadequate due to conflicting descriptions of the property. Additionally, the new zoning violates Glenpool’s comprehensive master plan and is in violation of the law. There is no substantial controversy as to any material fact, and the court properly entered judgment as a matter of law. Because we find no reversible errors of law, and the trial court’s order sets forth findings of fact and conclusions of law adequately explaining its decision, We AFFIRM under Oklahoma Supreme Court Rule 1.202(d), 12 O.S. 2011, Ch. 15, App. 1. Opinion by MITCHELL, V.C.J.; PRINCE, P.J., and SWINTON, J., CONCUR. May 20, 2022
119,694 – Catherine Z. Walsh, Personal Representative of the Estate of Earl Williams. Jr., Petitioner, v. The Honorable Kurt Glassco, District Judge for the Fourteenth Judicial District, Tulsa County, Respondent. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Kurt G. Glassco, Trial Judge. Petitioner/Appellant Catherine Z. Welsh appeals from an order determining wrongful death settlement proceeds are not a part of the probate estate for which Appellee Kimberly Hamilton is the personal representative. Welsh argues that the proceeds should have gone through probate and not transferred to a trust. Because we find that the interest in the proceeds of a wrongful death claim can be assigned by a statutory beneficiary, we AFFIRM the trial court’s order. Opinion by SWINTON, J.; MITCHELL, V.C.J., CONCURS and PRINCE, P.J., DISSENTS. May 20, 2022
119,897 – In the Matter of J.A., Child Adjudicated to be Deprived. Jose Arellano, Natural Father, Respondent/Appellant, v. The State of Oklahoma, Petitioner/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Wilma Palmer, Trial Judge. Jose Arellano seeks review of the trial court’s order granting judgment on a jury verdict to terminate his parental rights as to J.A.. Arellano challenges whether there was sufficient evidence supporting termination of his parental rights and whether termination of his parental rights was in the best interest of the child. Upon a review of the record, we find there was clear and convincing evidence in support of the jury’s verdict, and, therefore AFFIRM. Opinion by PRINCE, P.J.; MITCHELL, V.C.J., and SWINTON, J., CONCUR. May 20, 2022
Division IV
120,115 — David Cummings, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. The Oklahoma Department of Corrections and Scott Crow, as Director, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from an order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Cindy H. Truong, Trial Judge. David Cummings (Cummings) appeals the trial court’s order granting the Oklahoma Department of Corrections’ (DOC) motion to dismiss his petition for injunctive and declaratory relief regarding the Oklahoma Sex Offenders Registration Act, 57 O.S.2011, § 581 et seq. (SORA). Cummings asserts the trial court erred in dismissing his petition for injunctive and declaratory relief for lack of standing and for failure to state a claim for the denial of equal protection. Cummings has alleged a concrete, actual injury in fact and that the application of SORA to him has affected his interest in a direct, immediate and substantial manner. This does not change because Cummings subsequently left the state of Oklahoma. Accordingly, the trial court’s order granting DOC’s motion to dismiss Cummings’ petition for lack of standing is contrary to law and is reversed. The trial court’s order dismissing Cummings’ equal protection claim is affirmed. AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, J., FISCHER, C.J., and BARNES, P.J., concur. May 18, 2022