Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | Nov. 27, 2024
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
121,590 – Rick Hubler, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. MJ&H Fabrications, Inc., Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Kay County, Oklahoma. Honorable Lee Turner, Trial Judge. Plaintiff/Appellant, Rick Hubler, appeals from the trial court’s order granting the motion to compel arbitration filed by Defendant/Appellee, MJ&H Fabrications, Inc. Several months after Plaintiff’s lawsuit was filed, Defendant moved to compel arbitration. The trial court entered an order compelling arbitration and stayed the district court proceeding. On appeal, Plaintiff asserts the trial court abused its discretion when it compelled arbitration because Defendant took actions in the underlying proceeding that were inconsistent with Defendant’s right to arbitrate. Based on our review of the record, we hold the trial court properly found Defendant’s actions were insufficient to waive its right to compel arbitration. The pleadings filed by Defendant prior to the motion to compel arbitration were neither substantive nor did they address the merits of the case. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the trial court’s order compelling arbitration. Opinion by BELL, V.C.J.; SWINTON, P.J., and PRINCE, J., concur. November 21, 2024
121,831 – In the Matter of adoption of R.F.B., minor child. Daniel Bryan Hayes and Emily Jean Hayes, Petitioners/Appellees, v. Newt Aron Bush, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Marshall County, Oklahoma. Honorable Gregory Johnson, Trial Judge. Respondent/Appellant Newt Aron Bush (Natural Father) appeals from the trial court’s order finding his consent to adopt the minor child, R.F.B. (Child), was not required and from the Final Decree of Adoption granted in favor of Petitioners/Appellees Emily Jean Hayes (Mother) and Daniel Bryan Hayes (Stepfather) (collectively, Petitioners). Petitioners alleged Natural Father’s consent to adopt was not required because Natural Father failed to support Child and failed to maintain a substantial relationship with Child for twelve of the most recent fourteen months. Following a hearing, the trial court found Child eligible for adoption without Natural Father’s consent on the ground of failure to maintain a substantial relationship. After the hearing on best interests, the trial court entered the Final Decree of Adoption. Clear and convincing evidence supports the trial court’s decision, and we affirm. Opinion by SWINTON, P.J.; BELL, V.C.J., and PRINCE, J. concur. November 21, 2024
122,159 – In the Matter of the Adoption of L.E.S., L.R.C. and C.N.C. all minor children. Alexandra Schultz, Appellant, v. Barry C. Schultz and Amy K. Hart-Schultz, Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Washington County, Oklahoma. Honorable Russell Vaclaw, Trial Judge. This is the third appeal in this adoption proceeding. Appellant, Alexandra Schultz, the natural mother of three minor children (Mother), appeals from the trial court’s final decree of adoption permitting Appellees, Barry C. Shultz and Amy K. Hart-Schultz (Adoptive Parents), to adopt three minor children, L.E.S, L.R.C. and C.N.C. In Case No. 120,480, Division III of this Court affirmed the trial court’s order determining Mother’s consent to the adoption was unnecessary pursuant to 10 O.S. 2021 §7505-4.2(B) because Mother willfully failed to pay any child support in substantial compliance with a child support order during the relevant 14-month time period. After the best interests trial, the trial court entered a final decree of adoption. On appeal, Mother contends the trial court committed reversible error and abused its discretion when it proceeded with the adoption without obtaining L.E.S.’s consent to the adoption. Mother also contends the trial court’s decree was contrary to the children’s best interests. After reviewing the record, we find clear and convincing evidence supports the trial court’s determination that the adoption is in the children’s best interest. We further find clear and convincing evidence supports the trial court’s determination that it was not in L.E.S.’s best interest to require her consent to the adoption. The trial court’s decree of adoption is AFFIRMED. Opinion by BELL, V.C.J.; SWINTON, P.J., and PRINCE, J., concur. November 21, 2024
122,262 – Melody West, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. W.H. Braum, Inc., Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Garvin County, Oklahoma. Honorable Leah Edwards, Trial Judge. Melody West (Plaintiff/Appellant) has appealed the trial court’s grant of W.H. Braum, Inc.’s (Defendant/Appellee) (“WHB”) Motion to Vacate Default Judgment, alleging the trial court abused its discretion by vacating its prior entry of default judgment. The trial court previously entered default judgment against WHB after WHB failed to timely respond to Ms. West’s Petition. WHB moved to vacate default judgment, alleging its lack of response was the consequence of its attorney’s three-month medical leave, thus constituting an “unavoidable casualty” justifying its delayed response. Ms. West contended, however, that WHB’s failure to respond to her Petition was the result of its attorney’s negligence rather than an “unavoidable casualty.” The trial court, ultimately, granted WHB’s Motion to Vacate, which Ms. West has alleged constituted an abuse of discretion. We find no error in the trial court’s decision to vacate its prior judgment pursuant to 12 O.S. § 1031.1 and, accordingly, AFFIRM. Opinion by PRINCE, J.; BELL, V.C.J., dissents and GOREE, J., (sbd) concurs. November 21, 2024
122,397 – Riffel, Riffel and Benham, PLLC, a Professional Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Jodi Nightingale, an individual, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Garfield County, Oklahoma. Honorable Tom Newby, Trial Judge. In this action to collect unpaid attorney fees, Plaintiff/Appellant, Riffel, Riffel, and Benham, PLLC (Law Firm), appeals from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Defendant/Appellee, Jodi Nightingale (Client). Law Firm filed this breach of contract action against Client to collect unpaid attorney fees earned by Law Firm while representing Client in a guardianship proceeding. Client retained Law Firm to represent her in obtaining emergency and general guardianship for her mother. Client signed a retainer agreement specifying she would be responsible for all attorney fees and interest on past-due amounts. Client paid Law Firm a retainer fee but failed to pay the remainder of Law Firm’s earned attorney fees. In the proceeding below, both parties moved for summary judgment. Law Firm sought judgment on the breach of contract claim. Client argued she was entitled to judgment because the guardianship court had exclusive jurisdiction to consider Law Firm’s claim for unpaid attorney fees and costs. Client also contended she was entitled to judgment because the contract was unenforceable. She claimed Law Firm was required by 30 O.S. 2021 §4-403 to apply for such attorney fees and costs within the guardianship proceeding. The district court granted summary judgment to Client on the basis that the guardianship court had exclusive jurisdiction to address Law Firm’s claim against Client to recover unpaid attorney fees and costs. We hold the district court erred as a matter of law when it held it lacked jurisdiction to address Law Firm’s collection suit against Client. The district court’s judgment is reversed, and this matter is remanded to the district court for further proceedings. Opinion by BELL, V.C.J.; SWINTON, P.J., concurs and PRINCE, J., concurs in part and dissents in part. November 21, 2024
Division II
121,456 – In re the Marriage of: Johnny Gibson, Jr., Petitioner/Appellant, v. Callie Rainwater, Respondent/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of LeFlore County, Hon. Jonathan K. Sullivan, Trial Judge. Johnny Gibson, Jr., appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion to reconsider an order of default filed three months prior to the filing of Mr. Gibson’s motion to reconsider. We conclude the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider and, therefore, we reverse the order and remand the cause with instructions to the trial court to decide the merits of the motion. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by BARNES, C.J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. November 25, 2024
Division III
121,953 – CAF Bridge Borrower GS LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff/appellee, Vs. London Square Holdings LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; River Square Holdings LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; C. Yoseph Bialostozky, an Individual; and Mississauga Holdings LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendants/appellants, and SH & S Investments, LLC; Jetz Service Co., Inc; Redi-carpet Sales of Oklahoma, LLC; Raul Trujillo Garcia, Individually; NGE Painting and Remodeling, LLC; Solar Landscaping Solutions, LLC; Westlake Hardware, LLC; Pro Choice Carpet Cleaning and Restoration, Inc. D/b/a PCC Cleaning and Restoration; Performance Fire Systems, LLC; Roper Remodeling & Installation, LLC; Air Assurance Company; McHenry’s Landscaping & More, LLC; Board of County Commissioners of Tulsa County; and the Tulsa County Treasurer, Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Douglas E. Drummond, Trial Judge. At issue is whether the court abused its discretion in the appointment of a receiver, at an emergency hearing, for two multi-family apartment complexes in Tulsa. We hold it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to schedule an emergency hearing upon notice of alleged uninhabitable conditions at one of the properties or for the court to conduct the hearing in which the appellants did not file an objection and were represented by counsel. Further, the appointment of the receiver was not an abuse of discretion under 12 O.S. 2021 §1551 because appellants failed to show a lack of sufficient evidence for the appointment of the receiver, and the mortgage securing the loan on the properties provides for the appointment of a receiver when, as here, a condition of the mortgage was not performed. Opinion by MITCHELL, P.J.; GOREE, J., and DOWNING, J., concur. November 26, 2024
121,965 – In the matter of the Delbert C. Slack Revocable Living Trust, dated December 15, 1999, Carolyn Sue Collier, Trustee, Petitioner/Appellee, vs. Phyllis l. Whistler, Carolyn Sue Collier, Marcee Kathleen Whitten, Daniel Joseph Slack Jr, and Sheryl Slack, Trust Beneficiaries, Becky Elaine Slack, Personal Representative of the Estate of Daniel Joseph Slack, Sr., deceased, Former Trustee/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Nowata County, Oklahoma. Honorable Carl G. Gibson, Trial Judge. Appellant, Becky Elaine Slack (Becky) appeals from the trial court’s Order determining proper beneficiaries under a trust. A review of the record shows the findings of fact of the trial court are supported by sufficient competent evidence, the trial court’s conclusions of law adequately explain the decision, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Therefore, we summarily affirm the trial court’s judgment pursuant to Oklahoma Supreme Court Rule 1.202(b), (d) and (e), 12 O.S.2021, Ch. 15, App. 1. Opinion by DOWNING, J.; MITCHELL, P.J., and GOREE, J., concur. November 26, 2024
122,273 – Jillian Ledford, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Michael T. Wilson, an individual, d/b/a Patriot Roofing, LLC, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Douglas E. Drummond, Trial Judge. Appellant, Michael Wilson, an individual d/b/a Patriot Roofing, LLC (Wilson) appeals from the trial court’s Order Denying Combined Motion to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss or Stay Litigation Proceedings (Order) entered on June 3, 2024. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we REVERSE AND REMAND for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Opinion by DOWNING, J.; MITCHELL, P.J., concurs and GOREE, J., dissents. November 26, 2024
Division IV
121,878 – The State of Oklahoma, Plaintiff/Appellee, vs. Stephanie Ann Snow, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Cherokee County, Honorable Douglas Kirkley, District Judge. After her indictment for murder, Stephanie Ann Snow was found not guilty by reason of mental impairment. Per statute, she was committed to state custody for an evaluation of whether she must remain in state custody, could be conditionally released, or must be unconditionally released. The trial court found that the evidence supported only a conditional release. Fundamental to the trial court’s order is its finding that Ms. Snow “is in need of continued supervision as a result of … a history of treatment noncompliance.” Because this finding does not have any support in the record, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by BLACKWELL, J.; HIXON, J., concurs, and HUBER, P.J., dissents. November 21, 2024