Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | May 3, 2023
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
Division II
119,603 – Heath P. Harris, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Frontier State Bank, Joseph D. McKean, Jr., Joshua B. Bock, and Colin Pressley, Defendants/Appellants. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Susan C. Stallings, Trial Judge. Following an eight-day jury trial, the district court issued its Amended Journal Entry of Judgment memorializing a jury verdict in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $15,000,000. The district court subsequently issued an order denying the motions of Defendants for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial or remittitur. Defendants appeal, raising numerous issues. Based on our review, we affirm the judgment memorializing the jury’s verdict, and we affirm the order denying Defendants’ post-judgment motions. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by BARNES, V.C.J.; WISEMAN, P.J., concurs, and HIXON, J., concurs in part and dissents in part. April 27, 2023
120,202 – Tresa Diann Evans, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Marcus Evans, Respondent/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Martha Oakes, Trial Judge. In this post-dissolution of marriage proceeding, Petitioner appeals from the trial court’s order in which it found and ordered that Wife has no interest in the Oklahoma Firefighters Deferred Option Plan (Plan B) elected by Respondent. We conclude the trial court did not err as a matter of law in its interpretation of the parties’ consent decree of dissolution of marriage and in its finding that Petitioner has no interest in Respondent’s Plan B option. Accordingly, we affirm. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by BARNES, V.C.J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and HIXON, J., concur. April 28, 2023
Division III
119,998 – Andrew Dale Brassfield, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Rogers County, Oklahoma. Honorable Lara M. Russell, Trial Judge. Plaintiff/Appellant, Andrew Dale Brassfield, appeals from the trial court’s denial of his petition for expungement of criminal records. The trial court found Plaintiff was not entitled to relief because criminal charges are “pending” against Plaintiff within the meaning of 22 O.S. Supp. 2019 §18(A)(7)‑(11). Plaintiff filed a petition for the expungement of his criminal records in multiple felony and misdemeanor cases in Rogers County. One of the requirements of subsections (A)(7) through (11) is that the petitioner must not have pending criminal charges. After Plaintiff filed his petition, but prior to the hearing, the Rogers County District Attorney’s Office filed Case No. CF‑2021‑65 against Plaintiff alleging he committed a felony offense. The district attorney thereafter dismissed Case No. CF‑2021‑65 for lack of jurisdiction because Plaintiff is a member of the Cherokee Tribe and the offense was allegedly committed in Indian Country. The Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation argued the criminal conduct giving rise to Case No. CF‑2021‑65 is still pending because both the Cherokee Nation and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Oklahoma have ongoing investigations into Plaintiff. The plain meaning of the word “pending” is “remaining undecided, awaiting decisions.” We hold there has been no exoneration or acquittal to the charge alleged in Case No. CF‑2022‑65 and the charge has not been decided on its merits. Plaintiff is not qualified to seek expungement of his records in Rogers County District Court Case Nos. CM‑2018‑1202, CM‑2006‑1744, CM‑2004‑1362, CM‑2004‑1361, CM‑2003‑926, and the five (5) traffic offense cases. In each of these cases, Plaintiff sought expungement pursuant to one or more of subsections (7)‑(11), all of which require that no criminal charges be pending against the petitioner. Accordingly, the part of the trial court’s judgment that applies to these cases is affirmed. We also affirm the trial court’s judgment with respect to Count 1 of Rogers County District Court Case No. CF‑2019‑288, to which subsection (A)(7) also applies. However, we reverse the judgment with respect to Count 2 of Case No. CF‑2019‑288, which invokes subsection (A)(1), and Case No. CF‑2010‑539, which concerns subsection (A)(15). Neither of these subsections require the absence of pending criminal charges. We express no opinion regarding the merits of Plaintiff’s expungement motion regarding the remanded cases. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED. Opinion by BELL, J.; MITCHELL, C.J., and PRINCE, P.J., concur. April 28, 2023
120,510 – David R. Hull and Kellie Ann Hull, Husband and Wife; and Oilfield Disposal Services, LLC, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. JP Energy Marketing, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; Blueknight Energy Partners, LP, a Delaware Limited Partnership; and Coffeyville Resources Crude Transportation, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Love County, Oklahoma. Honorable Todd Hicks, Trial Judge. Plaintiffs/Appellants, David R. Hull, Kellie Ann Hull and Oilfield Disposal Services, LLC, appeal from the trial court’s interlocutory order denying their request for an evidentiary hearing on their motion for an abatement and cleanup order related to a crude oil spill on the individual Plaintiffs’ Love County property. Plaintiffs allege the trial court improperly denied their request to present evidence under Rule 4 of the Rules for District Courts, 12 O.S. 2021, Ch. 2, App. 1. For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE AND REMAND for further proceedings. Opinion by BELL, J.; MITCHELL, C.J., and PRINCE, P.J., concur. April 28, 2023
120,552 – Melissa Smith, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Michael Medlock, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Leflore County, Oklahoma. Honorable Jonathan K. Sullivan, Trial Judge. Defendant/Appellant, Michael Medlock (“Medlock”), appeals a Decree quieting title and ordering partition of real property located in LeFlore County, Oklahoma. Medlock and the Plaintiff/Appellee, Melissa Smith (“Smith”), lived together in a romantic relationship in approximately 2006, when an oral (“handshake”) agreement was made with Jerry Hopper (“Hopper”) to purchase two acres of land and borrow $15,000.00 from Hopper to purchase materials for construction of a cabin on the land. Hopper provided the financing and agreed that once the $15,000.00 was paid back plus a payment in the amount of $1,000.00 for the two acres of land, he would transfer title of the property to the purchaser(s). Medlock and Smith married each other in 2007, soon after the oral agreement was made, and the cabin was built by Hopper and Medlock during the marriage. In addition, the $15,000.00 was primarily paid back by Medlock and/or Smith during their marriage. Medlock and Smith divorced in 2011, and their Decree of Dissolution of Marriage did not include an award of the two acres of land or the cabin. After the divorce, Medlock sued Hopper for specific performance on the oral contract. Hopper subsequently transferred title of the property to Medlock. Smith brought the instant action in 2018 for an adjudication of her interest in the home. At trial the evidence was conflicting regarding who entered into the oral agreement with Hopper, but the evidence was undisputed that the cabin was built and paid for primarily during the marriage of Medlock and Smith. The trial court determined that Medlock and Smith each have a fifty percent ownership interest in the property as tenants in common, quieted title, and ordered a partition of the property. We find that the decision of the trial court was not against the clear weight of the evidence and AFFIRM the findings of fact and conclusions of law by the trial court. Opinion by PRINCE, P.J.; MITCHELL, C.J., and BELL, J., concur. May 2, 2023
Division IV