Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | Nov. 26, 2025
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
122,795 – In Re the Marriage of: Michelle Anderson Loader Petitioner/Appellee, vs. Gary Wayne Loader, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Garfield County, Oklahoma. Honorable Paul K. Woodward, Trial Judge. This appeal involves division of military retirement benefits as provided by the parties’ divorce decree. The court’s order was not contrary to law or an abuse of discretion and is therefore AFFIRMED. Opinion by GOREE, P.J.; SWINTON, J., and MITCHELL, J. (sitting by designation), concur. Nov. 20, 2025
123,184 – In the Matter of R.H., Alleged Deprived Child, Kerondra Douglas, Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Mary Ann Godsby, Trial Judge. Appellant, Kerondra Douglas (“Douglas”) appeals an Order Terminating Parental Rights. The child, R.H., was taken into emergency custody by the Department of Human Services (“DHS”) approximately one week after the date of the child’s birth in October 2023. Appellee, the State of Oklahoma, sought immediate termination of Douglas’ parental rights. Nevertheless, after R.H. was adjudicated deprived, Douglas was provided with an Individualized Service Plan (“ISP”) and given the opportunity to correct the conditions that led to the deprived adjudication. State ultimately sought termination, and the jury returned verdicts terminating Douglas’ parental rights. On appeal Douglas claims that DHS did not provide reasonable efforts to assist her, since she has a diminished mental capacity, and Douglas claims that State did not carry its burden to demonstrate that termination was supported by clear and convincing evidence. We disagree with Douglas’ contentions and find that the Order Terminating Parental Rights should be AFFIRMED. Opinion by PRINCE, J.; GOREE, P.J., and SWINTON, J., concur. Nov. 20, 2025
Division II
122,822 – In the Matter of: G.K. and J.D.K., Alleged Deprived Children, Nakeisha Henderson, Appellant, vs. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Honorable Kaitlyn Allen, Trial Judge. Nakeisha Henderson appeals a trial court order upon jury verdict terminating her parental rights to her minor children, GK and JK. The question on appeal is whether the State of Oklahoma proved by clear and convincing evidence both a statutory ground for termination and that termination of Mother’s parental rights is in the children’s best interest. After review, we conclude that State met its burden as to both, and we affirm the trial court’s order terminating Mother’s parental rights. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; FISCHER, J., and BLACKWELL, J., concur. Nov. 25, 2025
Division III
122,491 – Diana Sauder, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Truflight Academy, Todd Guison, and Scarlett Guison, Defendants/Appellants. Appeal from the District Court of Rogers County, Oklahoma. Honorable Tamera Childers, Trial Judge. Appellants/Defendants Truflight Academy, Todd Guison and Scarlett Guison appealed from a small claims judgment in favor of Plaintiff/Appellee Diana Sauder after a bench trial conducted pursuant to the Small Claims Procedure Act, 12 O.S. §§1751 et seq. Plaintiff had initiated the small claims action to recover her security deposit and other damages under a residential lease between her and the Appellants. After Appellants had terminated her lease and required her to vacate the residence early, they retained the security deposit and the pro-rata balance of that month’s rent due to alleged repairs required. After the bench trial, the trial court ordered Appellants to pay Plaintiff $1,104.62, which appeared to comprise the security deposit, the pro-rata rent, and Plaintiff’s filing fees. On appeal, Appellants argued that the trial court denied their due process rights by cutting the trial off before they had an opportunity to present their evidence, and that the trial court’s decision was against the clear weight of the evidence. Because there was no transcript of proceedings nor did Appellants prepare and file a Narrative Statement pursuant to Oklahoma Supreme Court Rule 1.30, this Court finds no error in the record as related to the trial court’s conduct of trial, and holds that there was sufficient evidence in the record supporting the trial court’s judgment. AFFIRMED. Opinion by MITCHELL, J.; BELL, C.J., and DOWNING, P.J., concur. Nov. 21, 2025
122,687 – Joshua Goggin and Heather Goggin, Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. Dingo Investments of Perry, LLC, d/b/a Seth Wadley Chevrolet GMC of Perry, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Noble County, Oklahoma. Honorable Lee Turner, Trial Judge. Defendant/Appellant Dingo Investments of Perry, LLC, appealed a denial by the trial court of its motion to compel arbitration of the claims asserted against it by Plaintiffs/Appellees Joshua and Heather Goggin. The Goggins had purchased a vehicle from Defendant, in connection with which they executed a purchase and sale contract. Separately, the Goggins also purchased from Defendant a service contract obligating a non-party to cover the costs of certain mechanical malfunctions. After the purchased vehicle broke down, the Goggins brought the vehicle to Defendant for repairs. Defendant took possession of the vehicle and over the course of several months made representations to the Plaintiffs that it was repairing the vehicle. According to the allegations in the Petition, however, Defendant actually – without notice to or consent by the Plaintiffs – sold the vehicle to a third party and kept the proceeds for itself. When Plaintiffs sued, Defendant moved to compel arbitration based on provisions of either the sale contract or service contract, which the trial court denied. On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals agrees with the trial court as to six of the eight claims in the Petition on the grounds that the dispute alleged did not “arise out of or relate to” the contractual relationship created by the sale agreement. Defendant’s alleged action giving rise to the dispute was not contemplated by the sale agreement nor did it relate to the parties’ respective rights duties and obligations under the sale agreement. The arbitration agreements were thus not implicated for those claims. With respect to the Goggins’ claims for fraudulent inducement and tortious breach of contract, the Court of Civil Appeals reverses the trial court and remands for an evidentiary hearing as to the Goggins’ arguments relating to unconscionability. AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART. Opinion by MITCHELL, J.; DOWNING, P.J., concurs and BELL, C.J., concurs in part and dissents in part. Nov. 21, 2025
123,440 – M&M Capital Investments, LLC, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Jason Baker, et al., Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Kelly Greenough, Trial Judge. Appellant Jason Baker appeals the trial court’s August 12, 2025 Journal Entry of Judgment granting summary judgment in favor of M&M Capital Investments, LLC. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we REVERSE AND REMAND. Opinion by DOWNING, P.J.; BELL, C.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. Nov. 21, 2025
123,450 – Maria Rangel, Plaintiff/Appellant. V. Bixby Independent School District a/k/a Bixby Public School District, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Kelly Greenough, Trial Judge. Appellant, Maria Rangel appeals the trial court’s Journal Entry of Judgment granting summary judgment in favor of Appellee, Bixby Independent School District a/k/a Bixby Public School District. Based on our review, we AFFIRM. Opinion by DOWNING, P.J.; BELL, C.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. Nov. 21, 2025
Division IV
122,887 – Julia Rial, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. First Bank & Trust Co., Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Stephens County, Hon. Lawrence Wheeler, Trial Judge. Plaintiffs (although not reflected in the caption, a second Plaintiff was added in the amended petition) seek review of the trial court’s order granting the motion to dismiss of Defendant. This action arises from overdraft fees charged by Defendant for a certain type of transaction, labeled by Plaintiffs as Authorize Positive, Settle Negative Transactions, or APSN Transactions. Defendant sought dismissal on the basis that the “unambiguous terms of the Contract Documents” executed by the parties as part of Plaintiffs’ opening of a bank account with Defendant support imposition of the fees on APSN Transactions. However, at the pleading stage of this case, one reasonable interpretation of the contract documents is that the APSN Transactions described in the petition are not subject to overdraft fees. Because a reasonable interpretation exists in conflict with Defendant’s proposed interpretation – i.e., an interpretation that supports Plaintiffs’ claim of breach of contract based on the imposition of fees on APSN Transactions – the trial court erred in granting dismissal. We further conclude Defendant has failed to demonstrate the appropriateness of dismissing Plaintiffs’ alternative claim of unjust enrichment. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order granting the motion to dismiss and remand for further proceedings. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by BARNES, P.J.; HIXON, V.C.J., and HUBER, J., concur. Nov. 20, 2025
121,564 – Patrick S. Ryan and Chris M. Williams, Petitioners/Appellees, vs. State of Oklahoma, ex rel., Oklahoma Real Estate Appraiser Board, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. C. Brent Dishman, Trial Judge. Respondent/Appellant, the Oklahoma Real Estate Appraiser Board (Board) disciplined petitioners/appellees, Patrick S. Ryan and Chris M. Williams (collectively, Petitioners), after an appraiser filed a grievance against them regarding an appraised property located in Guymon, Oklahoma. Petitioners appealed the Board’s decision to the Oklahoma County District Court. Upon submission of briefs and after a hearing was conducted, the district court vacated the Board’s disciplinary order. On review, we affirm the district court’s journal entry of judgment, vacating the Board’s disciplinary order. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HUBER, J.; BARNES, P.J., and HIXON, V.C.J., concur. Nov. 25, 2025