Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | May 4, 2022
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
119,380 – Bobby Martin, Petitioner/Appellee, v. Stacey Allison Hauff, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Atoka County, Oklahoma. Honorable Preston Harbuck, Trial Judge. Stacey Hauff, Mother/Appellant, seeks review of the Atoka County District Court’s January 26, 2021 Order Modifying Custody, Visitation and Child Support, addressing the custody and visitation of E.H., the parties’ minor child, born in 2017. The district court found joint custody was not working in the child’s best interest and granted sole custody of the minor child to Father/Appellee, Bobby Martin. We affirm the January 26, 2021 order of the district court. Opinion by GOREE, J.; BELL, P.J., and PRINCE, J., (sbd) concur. – May 3, 2022
119,559 – In Re the Marriage of Alison Faith Dancer, Petitioner/Appellant/Counter-Appellee, v. Jack Tom Dancer, Respondent/Appellee/Counter-Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Payne County, Oklahoma. Honorable Michael Kulling, Trial Judge. In this dissolution of marriage proceeding, Petitioner/Appellant/Counter-Appellee, Alison Faith Dancer (Wife), and Respondent/Appellee/Counter-Appellant, Jack Tom Dancer (Husband), both appeal from portions of the trial court’s decree valuing and dividing marital assets and determining separate property. We hold the trial court abused its discretion when it determined the home occupied by the parties during the marriage (marital home) was marital property and when it awarded Husband 75% of the marital home’s value. The marital home is Husband’s separate property, but there is a marital component in the increase in value of the home due to the parties’ efforts, skills or funds during the parties’ twenty-five (25) year marriage. The trial court’s characterization of the marital home as marital property is reversed and remanded. On remand, the trial court shall hold a hearing to determine the increase in value of the marital home in accordance with Theilenhaus v. Theilenhaus, 1995 OK 5, 890 P.2d 925, and shall award Wife an equitable share of such increase in value. We further hold the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to award Wife an equitable share post-petition passive increase in value of the Well Fargo Account ending #4203. The trial court’s award of this increase to Husband is reversed and remanded. On remand the trial court is ordered to ascertain and award Wife an equitable share of such passive increase in value. We cannot find the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Husband’s dissipation of marital assets claim. Wife did not dissipate marital assets when she expended marital assets – two (2) years prior to file date of the petition – for mental health care. This portion of the decree is affirmed. We hold the trial court abused its discretion when it awarded Husband an offset of $82,470.00 for Husband’s investment of separate funds in Wife’s marital business. This portion of the trial court’s decree is reversed. The remainder of the decree is affirmed. The trial court’s decree is affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. – April 25, 2022
Division II
119,531 – Bishop Malcolm W. Coby, Sr. Phd, on behalf of the Greater Gospel Kingdom Church of God in Christ, Inc. and Elder Hamilton B. Ware, formerly Pastor Emeritus, now Reactivated Pastor Greater Gospel Kingdom Church of God in Christ, Inc., Plaintiffs/Appellees, vs. Rickey T.L. Hunt, Sr., Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. W. Mike Warren, Trial Judge. Appellant Rickey Hunt appeals a summary declaratory judgment of the district court holding that the Greater Gospel Kingdom Church of God in Christ (Greater Gospel), rather than himself or his new church, Dominion and Glory International Ministries Inc. (Dominion and Glory), was the proper beneficiary of an insurance policy originally issued to Greater Gospel. On review we find the judgment was erroneously entered because Dominion and Glory was an indispensable party to the action, but they had not yet been added as a party. VACATED AND REMANDED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II by BLACKWELL, J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and RAPP, J., concur. – April 29, 2022
119,219 – Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Certificate Trustee, Plaintiff/Appellee, vs. Kenneth R. Brown and Janet K. Brown, Defendants/Appellants, and Lasalle Bank National Association, as Custodian for Morgan Stanley, MSAC 2007-HES; GE Money Bank; John Doe, as Occupant of the Premises; and Jane Doe, as Occupant of the Premises, Defendants. Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Carter County, Hon. Dennis Morris, Trial Judge. Kenneth R. Brown and Janet K. Brown appeal a summary judgment in favor of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (Bank), and the district court’s denial of their motion to vacate the judgment. On review, we affirm the decisions of the district court. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II by BLACKWELL, J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and BARNES, J., concur. – April 25, 2022
119,576 — Robert Tasso, Petitioner, vs. Lucky Star Casino and The Workers’ Compensation Commission, Respondents. Proceeding to review an Order of the Workers’ Compensation Commission. Robert Richard Tasso (Claimant) seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Commission affirming a decision of an administrative law judge to dismiss his claim for lack of jurisdiction by the Commission. Claimant seeks review for error by the Commission in finding that it had no jurisdiction over the Employer, Lucky Star Casino, and its insurer, AMERIND Risk Management Corporation. This appeal raises issues of whether they are entitled to sovereign immunity and whether denial of substitution of the third-party administrator, Berkley Risk Administrator Company, LLC, for Employer or Insurer was proper. Based on our analysis, we uphold the Commission’s decision to affirm the ALJ’s dismissal of Claimant’s suit for lack of jurisdiction against Employer and Insurer based on sovereign immunity and to reject Claimant’s attempt to pursue liability against the third-party administrator. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; RAPP, J., concurs, and BLACKWELL, J., concurs specially. – April 22, 2022
118,573 – Vulcan Construction Materials, LLC, and Arbuckle Aggregates, LLC, Plaintiffs/Appellants, vs. City of Tishomingo, Oklahoma, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Johnston County, Hon. Jeff Virgin, Trial Judge. The plaintiffs, limestone mining companies operating or planning to operate north of the city of Tishomingo, appeal a district court decision finding that alterations to the City of Tishomingo’s nuisance ordinances—modifications that would severely limit the companies’ operations and which directly conflict with state law permitting those same activities—are not preempted by state law. On review, we find the operative portion of the ordinances is preempted, but that other provisions are not. AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II by BLACKWELL, J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and RAPP, J., concur. – April 22, 2022