Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | May 7, 2025
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
Division II
122,049 – Toorak Capital Partners, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Plaintiff, vs. Austin Family Estates, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company, and Jimmy Don Austin, Jr., individually, Defendants, and Robert Dew, Objector/ Appellee, and Bid4Assets, Inc., d/b/a Bid4Assets, Intervenor/Appellant. Objector and Appellee Robert Dew filed a motion to dismiss this appeal as moot after Plaintiff/Appellant Toorak Capital Partners, LLC, dismissed its appeal. We conclude the appeal is now moot and grant Dew’s motion to dismiss. DISMISSED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; FISCHER, J., and BLACKWELL, J., concur. April 30, 2025
121,966 – In the Marriage of: Kimberly R. Deacon, Petitioner/Appellee, vs. Royce Jett Deacon, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Jennifer S. Montagna, Special Judge. Royce Jett Deacon, the father of the minor child at issue here, appeals a modification of child support by the court. Kimberly R. Deacon, the child’s mother, appeals a subsequent award of attorneys’ fees. On review, we find no record sufficient to allow meaningful review of the fee award but find no error in the court’s other decisions. As such, we vacate the fee award to Ms. Deacon and remand for a more detailed order. All other decisions appealed are affirmed. AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II by BLACKWELL, J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. May 1, 2025
121,825 – In the Marriage of: Gina R. Lindo, Petitioner/Appellee, vs. Paul A. Lindo, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Canadian County, Hon. Charles Gass, Special Judge. Appellant, Paul Lindo, appeals various portions of his final divorce decree, arguing that the court improperly valued Paul Lindo Construction LLC, failed to correctly calculate his monthly income, and should not have found him in indirect contempt. Upon review, we affirm the court’s valuation of the business, but vacate the child-support order, which was based on the court’s finding that Paul’s gross monthly income was $39,666.66, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We also find that Paul’s contempt issue was not yet appealable as he has not been sentenced. AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II by BLACKWELL, J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. May 2, 2025
Division III
121,854 – National Group Investment, LLC; and Sameh Hemila, Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. Tulsa Team Global Investment, LLC, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company; and 2815CP Investments, LLC, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company, Defendants/Appellants, Tulsa Healing Collective, LLC, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company; Tulsa Healing Cultivation, LLC, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company; Imad Rhayem; and Marc Najjar, Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Kelly Greenough, Trial Judge. Plaintiffs/Appellees, National Group Investment, LLC and Sameh Hemila, filed a petition alleging breach of contract, conversion and misappropriation, fraud and breach of constructive trust against Defendants/Appellants, Tulsa Team Global Investment, LLC, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company (TTGI); 2815CP Investments, LLC, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company (2815CP); and other parties. Plaintiffs sought an accounting; actual and compensatory damages, including lost profits; and declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs served summons and a copy of the petition upon Defendants’ registered service agents at the agents’ registered offices. Defendants did not enter an appearance or otherwise plead within the time set forth at 12 O.S. 2021 §2012(A)(1). Plaintiffs filed a motion for a default judgment which was entered November 3, 2022. Defendants’ counsel filed an entry of appearance on the same day reserving an additional twenty (20) days to answer or otherwise plead. No responsive pleading was filed. After an evidentiary hearing on December 16, 2022, the trial court entered a final judgment on August 30, 2023, awarding Plaintiffs actual damages in the amount of $264,156.59. More than ten (10) but within thirty (30) days after the entry of the judgment, Defendants filed a motion to vacate the final judgment alleging, in part, that the default judgment was void for lack of proper service of process. The trial court entered an order denying the motion to vacate. Defendants now appeal alleging the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to vacate the default judgment. After reviewing the record, we cannot find the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Defendants’ motion to vacate the default judgment. The trial court’s order is AFFIRMED. Opinion by BELL, C.J.; DOWNING, P.J., and PRINCE, J. (sitting by designation), concur. May 01, 2025
122,231 – Marquitta Neel Jackson, individually; et al., Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Patricia Ellen Neel Titus, et al., Defendant/Appellee, and J. Schadd Titus, attorney for Porter Bancshares, Inc., an Oklahoma Corporation, et al., Steven Riff, et al., Defendants, and Porter Bancshares, Inc., and State Bank of Porter, Nominal Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of Wagoner County, Oklahoma. Honorable Rebecca Hunter, Trial Judge. Plaintiff/Appellant appeals from the denial of a motion to vacate an agreed order sealing the record, and she appeals from the denial of a motion for new trial on the motion to vacate. The appellant had a maximum of three years in which to file a motion to vacate unless the agreed order is facially void in which case the order may be vacated at any time. The motion to vacate was filed over eight years after the agreed order sealed the record, and it is not facially void. Therefore, the appellant filed her motion to vacate out of time. The court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to vacate or by denying the motion for new trial on the denial of the motion to vacate. Opinion by MITCHELL, J.; BELL, C.J., and DOWNING, P.J., concur. May 01, 2025
125,508 – Harry R. Aschan Revocable Trust and Vandever Acres Office Park, LTD, an Oklahoma Limited Partnership, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Cypress Place LLC, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company and City of Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, a Municipal Corporation, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable William LaFortune, Trial Judge. Plaintiffs/Appellants, Harry R. Aschan Revocable Trust and Vandever Acres Office Park, Ltd., appeal from the trial court’s order dismissing their petition in this zoning and restrictive covenant action against Defendants/Appellants, Cypress Place LLC and the City of Broken Arrow, Oklahoma. Vandever Acres Office Park (Office Park) is an office complex situated in Broken Arrow. Plaintiff Harry R. Aschan Revocable Trust (Trust) owns one of five units/lots (specifically Lot 2) in the Office Park. The record is also unclear what interest, if any, Vandever Acres Office Park, Ltd (Vandever) has in the Office Park. Defendant Cypress Place owns an undeveloped tract of land (Lot 4) within the Office Park. For decades, the Office Park has been zoned for use as an A-1 Commercial District. In 2023, Cypress Place applied for a new planned unit development seeking to have its property rezoned for light industrial use. The application was eventually approved by the Broken Arrow City Council in October 2023. In March 2024, Plaintiffs filed the instant suit alleging City’s approval was unlawful and that Cypress Place’s intended use violates restrictive covenants. On Cypress Place’s motion, the trial court dismissed the petition with prejudice, ruling that any amendment to the petition would be futile. With respect to Plaintiffs’ zoning challenge, we hold Plaintiffs’ petition is time-barred because it was not filed within thirty (30) days of City’s decision pursuant to 11 O.S. 2021 §43-109.1. Regarding Plaintiffs’ cause of action seeking to enforce restrictive covenants, we hold the petition is premature because the architectural committee of the Office Park – the entity solely authorized to approve or reject buildings within the complex – has yet to act. AFFIRMED. Opinion by BELL, C.J.; DOWNING, P.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. May 01, 2025
Division IV
121,883 – W.C.I., L.L.C., Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Built on the Rock Church, Richard Blankenship, Jeffrey Blankenship, Patricia Lucille Coats, Defendants/ Appellees, and Faramarz Mehdipour, d/b/a WCI, LLC, Plaintiff v. Patricia Coats, Defendant. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Richard C. Ogden, Trial Judge. W.C.I., LLC (WCI) appeals a judgment quieting title to real properties in Built on the Rock Church entered after a bench trial, as well as the order denying its motion to modify. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we affirm. AFFIRMED. Opinion on Rehearing from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, V.C.J.; BARNES, P.J., and HUBER, J., concur. May 2, 2025