Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | Nov. 29, 2023
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
120,318 – The City of Jenks, Oklahoma, an Oklahoma Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Sparkman Land, L.L.C., Defendant/Appellant, The Board of County Commissioners of Tulsa County; Dennis Semler, County Treasurer of the County of Tulsa, State of Oklahoma, Defendants/Appellees, and Wallace Engineering, Inc., Intervenor/Appellee. Plaintiff/Appellee, The City of Jenks, prevailed in its condemnation action to acquire rights to real property owned by Sparkman Land, L.L.C., Defendant/Appellant. Jenks knowingly assumed inconsistent positions to obtain the relief in the appealed order, and it is therefore reversed by application of the doctrine of judicial estoppel. Bank of Wichitas, 2006 OK 73, 151 P.3d 103. Opinion by GOREE, P.J.; SWINTON, J., and DOWNING, J., concur. November 22, 2023
Division II
121,364 – Michael B. Smith, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Spices of India, an Oklahoma limited liability company, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff/Appellee, and Telluride Properties, Inc., an Oklahoma Corporation, a/k/a and d/b/a Telluride Properties, LLC, Third-Party Defendant. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. C. Brent Dishman, Trial Judge. Michael B. Smith appeals an order granting summary adjudication to Spices of India in this premises liability suit. Smith argues there are facts in dispute that preclude summary judgment and thus, it was error to grant Spices summary adjudication. We disagree. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the order under review. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by HIXON, J.; BARNES, V.C.J., and WISEMAN, P.J., concur. November 28, 2023
Division III
120,944 – In re the Marriage of: Matthew Scott Eikermann, Petitioner/Appellee, v. Kristin Eikermann, now Housley, Respondent Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Carter County, Oklahoma. Honorable Thomas K. Baldwin, Trial Judge. This is a post‑divorce proceeding involving an Application for Indirect Contempt Citation and a Motion to Reinstate Visitation filed by the Respondent/Appellant, Kristin Hunter (“Mother”). Mother’s in person visitation with the Parties’ minor children was suspended by the trial court after Petitioner/Appellee, Matthew Scott Eikermann (“Father”) sought an emergency order to suspend visitation. Mother subsequently filed her Motion to Reinstate Visitation. She also filed a contempt action, alleging that Father willfully failed to divide retirement assets in accordance with the terms of the Parties’ Decree of Divorce. The trial court found Father not guilty of contempt, awarded Mother the right to supervised visitation, valued the retirement accounts, and granted Father an award of attorney’s fees, expenses, and costs. We find that the visitation schedule ordered by the trial court should be reversed, that the trial court correctly valued the retirement accounts, that the finding that Father was not guilty of contempt is free from error, and that the attorney fee award is not an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the Order of the trial court is AFFIRMED, in part, REVERSED, in part, and the matter is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. Opinion by PRINCE, P.J.; MITCHELL, C.J., and BELL, J., concur. November 28, 2023
121,348 – In the Matter of: R.S., and K.S., Alleged Deprived Children, Joshua Smith, Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Julie Doss, Trial Judge. In this action to determine two minor children deprived, Appellant, Joshua Smith, the biological father (Father), appeals from the trial court’s order determining his two minor children, R.S., born October 15, 2016, and K.S., born April 17, 2018, deprived. The natural mother, Casey Cumbey (Mother), died prior to trial. The Department of Human Services (DHS) received a referral about the minor children with allegations of exposure to domestic violence, substance abuse and inadequate physical care. DHS took the children into emergency custody February 26, 2021. The State of Oklahoma (State) alleged the children deprived as defined by 10A O.S. 2021 §1‑1‑105 because the children are destitute, homeless, or abandoned; they lack proper parental care or guardianship; they are abused, neglected or dependent; and they are drug endangered children. After a trial, the trial court found the State of Oklahoma (State) demonstrated with competent evidence that the children are deprived. On appeal, Father challenges the trial court’s evidentiary ruling admitting the body camera (body‑cam) video of the Tulsa Police Officer who was at the scene when DHS took the children into custody. Father contends the court’s admission of this evidence violated his fourth amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and divulged Mother’s hearsay statements. After reviewing the record, we cannot find the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted the body‑cam video. Father orally moved to suppress the body‑cam video prior to the trial, but failed to object to the admission of the body‑cam video when it was offered at trial. Accordingly, Father failed to preserve this issue for review. Even if the body‑cam video had been excluded, we find substantial competent evidence supports the trial court’s determination that the children are deprived. The trial court’s order determining the children deprived is AFFIRMED. Opinion by BELL, J.; MITCHELL, C.J., and PRINCE, P.J., concur. November 28, 2023
Division IV