Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | Nov. 5, 2025
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
122,857 – In Re: The Estate of Karry Jackson, Deceased, Mark Wilson, Ancillary Petitioner/Appellant, v. Dian Black, Personal Representative, Respondent/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Cherokee County, Oklahoma. Honorable Josh King, Trial Judge. Petitioner/Appellant Mark Wilson appeals from the trial court’s orders dismissing his ancillary petition on rejected claims filed in the probate of the Estate of Karry Jackson (Decedent or Estate) and denying his motion to vacate the final probate distribution. Respondent/Appellee Dian Black, Personal Representative of Estate (Personal Representative), sought dismissal of Wilson’s ancillary claims because they were for contracts entered into after Decedent’s death. The record suggests Wilson remodeled Decedent’s house after Decedent’s death and therefore his claim for reimbursement was not payable by Estate; however, Wilson was entitled to reimbursement of reasonable funeral expenses he paid. Additionally, whether Wilson was entitled to equitable subrogation for paying two of Decedent’s debts is a question for trial. The record presented does not support dismissal of Wilson’s ancillary petition in its entirety. We therefore find the trial court abused its discretion in denying Wilson’s motion to vacate. We remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Opinion by SWINTON, J., GOREE, P.J., and PRINCE, J., concur. Oct. 29, 2025
122,937 – In Re: The Estate of Karry Jackson, Deceased, Mark Wilson, Ancillary Petitioner/Appellant, v. Dian Black, Personal Representative, Respondent/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Cherokee County, Oklahoma. Honorable Josh King, Trial Judge. Petitioner/Appellant Mark Wilson appeals from the trial court’s order dismissing his unjust enrichment petition. The trial court found Wilson’s unjust enrichment claim was barred by res judicata because he raised the same issues in an ancillary petition in the probate of the Estate of Karry Jackson. When a claim against an estate is rejected, the claimant may bring either an ancillary proceeding in the probate case or an independent action. The record here shows Wilson filed both. After Wilson’s ancillary action was unsuccessful, he brought this independent civil action. The trial court correctly found Wilson’s civil action was barred by his election to seek redress in an ancillary action in the probate case. We affirm. Opinion by SWINTON, J.; GOREE, P.J., and PRINCE, J., concur. Oct. 29, 2025
122,953 – In the Matter of: K.D., alleged deprived child, Jerri Dawn Davis, Appellant, vs. The State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Pottawatomie County, Oklahoma. Honorable Tracy L. McDaniel, Trial Judge. This appeal was filed by Jerri Dawn Davis (“Appellant” or “Davis”) and challenges an Order terminating her parental rights to K.D., a male minor child born during December 2020. Davis is K.D.’s natural mother. K.D. was removed from Davis’ custody after one of her children reported sexual abuse by a family friend who provided childcare for Davis’ children. Davis took the child to the hospital and reported the alleged abuse to the hospital and the police. K.D. was adjudicated deprived and a jury returned unanimous verdicts terminating Davis’ parental rights to K.D. on the ground that K.D. was in DHS custody for at least six months prior to the time that the State filed its Motion to Terminate and that Davis’ relationship with K.D. deteriorated over time. We have reviewed the record and find that the State carried its burden of proof. We, therefore, AFFIRM the Order Terminating Parental Rights – ICWA Compliant. Opinion by PRINCE, P.J.; GOREE, P.J., and SWINTON, J., concur. Oct. 29, 2025
Division II
122,444 – In the Matter of the Estate of Robert C. Bodnar, Deceased: Anne Poling, Appellee, vs. Bina Islam Bodnar, Appellant. Proceeding to review an Order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Elizabeth Kerr, Special Judge. Bina Islam appeals the court’s order directing Apple, Inc., to release certain of the decedent’s online account passwords to the personal representative, the court’s order awarding interim attorney’s fees and costs from the estate, and the court’s order releasing the decedent’s remains to the personal representative. Upon review, we affirm each of the court’s orders. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II by BLACKWELL, J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. Oct. 29, 2025
122,898 – In the Matter of A.R. and D.R., Alleged Deprived Children, Carrie Hudson and David Richardson, Jr., Appellants, vs. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Proceeding to review an Order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Kevin McCray, Special Judge. In these consolidated appeals, Carrie Hudson and David Richardson, Jr., appeal the district court’s decrees terminating their parental rights to the minor children, A.R. and D.R., entered on unanimous jury verdicts. Upon review, we find that the decrees are supported by sufficient evidence, the required active efforts to prevent the breakup of the family were made, the termination of parental rights was in the children’s best interest, and Mr. Richardson was not denied due process. Accordingly, we affirm. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II by BLACKWELL, J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. Oct. 29, 2025
Division III
122,663 – In the Matter of M.B., J.B., S.B., L.B., Deprived Children, Heather Braitsch, Respondent/Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, Petitioner/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Wagoner County, Oklahoma. Honorable Gary Huggins, Trial Judge. This is an appeal from the termination of a mother’s parental rights to four children following a jury trial on the grounds of abandonment; failure to correct the conditions of possessing/using illegal drugs/addition, neglect, mental health instability, and threat of harm; and foster care placement for the requisite time period. Following a review of the record for clear and convincing evidence, we affirm. We hold the court did not fail to properly account for the mother’s cancer diagnosis and treatment, and the court did not admit hearsay or other prejudicial evidence at trial. Further, we hold the mother did not show she corrected the conditions that led to the children’s removal despite completing the objectives on her individualized service plan because she did not make material changes to her behavior, environment, or lifestyle. For this reason, the children could not be returned to her care and were in the foster care system for more than the requisite time period for termination. The mother did not appeal this ground for termination. Finally, we are unable to review the court’s denial of a continuance of trial because the record is silent on this issue. The termination order is AFFIRMED. Opinion by MITCHELL, J.; BELL, C.J., and DOWNING, P.J., concur. Oct. 31, 2025
122,924 – In the Matter of K.Y.R., K.X.R. and K.Z.R., Deprived Children, Howard Rollins II, Defendant/Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, Plaintiff/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Kevin Gray, Trial Judge. Howard Rollins II (Father) appeals the trial court’s order filed on February 7, 2025, memorializing a jury termination of his parental rights as to K.Y.R, K.X.R. and K.Z.R. We have reviewed the record and applicable law and are not persuaded by Father’s arguments. Opinion by DOWNING, P.J.; BELL, C.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. Oct. 31, 2025
122,976 – Saga Investments, LLC, d/b/a Mary’s Grill, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Yasmin Williams, Defendant/Appellant, and Gary Williams, her spouse (deceased), and any Unknown Successors, Tenets and Assigns, Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of Kay County, Oklahoma. Honorable Lee Turner, Trial Judge. In this action to void a deed pursuant to the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), 24 O.S. 2021 §112 et seq., Defendant/Appellant, Yasmin Williams, appeals from the trial court’s order sustaining the motion for summary judgment filed by Plaintiff/Appellee, Saga Investments, LLC, d/b/a Mary’s Grill. Plaintiff sought to void a warranty deed from Kongfei Wang to Defendant under the UFTA on the basis that Defendant did not pay fair market value for the property, Defendant was not a good faith transferee when she accepted the warranty deed for the consideration of $1.00, and Defendant knew Plaintiff had a claim against Kongfei Wang. The trial court granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and voided the deed. After de novo review, this Court AFFIRMS the trial court’s order pursuant to Oklahoma Supreme Court Rule 1.202(d), 12 O.S. 2021, Ch. 15, App. Opinion by BELL, C.J.; DOWNING, P.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. Oct. 31, 2025
123,255 – N.V. Shires and Roger L. Beavers, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Echo Minerals I, LLC, Echo Minerals II, LLC, Echo Minerals VII, LLC, and the heirs, executors, administrators, devisees, trustees and assigns of Robert P. Beitel, Deceased, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Grady County, Oklahoma. Honorable Kory Kirkland, Trial Judge. Appellants N.V. Shires (Shires) and Roger Beavers (Beavers) (collectively Appellants) appeal the trial court’s May 19, 2025 Final Journal Entry of Judgment (Judgment) granting summary judgment in favor of Echo Minerals, I, LLC, Echo Minerals II, LLC, and Echo Minerals VIII, LLC (collectively Echo Minerals). Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we AFFIRM. Opinion by DOWNING, P.J.; BELL, C.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. Oct. 31, 2025
Division IV
122,454 – Justin Brent Turner, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Robin Marie Caisse, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Canadian County, Hon. Barbara Hatfield, Trial Judge. Justin Brent Turner, a landlord, appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion for new trial or to reconsider an award of prevailing party attorney fees to his tenant, Robin Marie Caisse, following the dismissal of his forcible entry and detainer action upon the court’s determination that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We conclude the trial court abused its discretion in denying Mr. Turner’s motion. Accordingly, we reverse. REVERSED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by BARNES, P.J.; HIXON, V.C.J., and HUBER, J., concur. Oct. 31, 2025
122,288 (Consolidated with Case No. 122,440) – Rachel Claire Aikins, Petitioner/Appellee, v. James Alan Aikins, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Pittsburg County, Hon. Mindy Beare, Trial Judge. This appeal arises out of a marital dissolution proceeding. James Alan Aikins (Husband) seeks review of the district court’s order denying his Motion to Dismiss. Husband sought dismissal based on constitutional arguments challenging the Oklahoma Legislature’s enactment of a statute permitting divorces on the ground of incompatibility, reflected in 43 O.S. 2021 § 101. Consistent with decisions of the Oklahoma Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of the United States, we reject Husband’s arguments and affirm the district court’s order denying Husband’s Motion to Dismiss. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by BARNES, P.J.; HIXON, V.C.J., and HUBER, J., concur. Nov. 3, 2025