Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | Nov. 6, 2024
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
121,476 – In re the Marriage of: Bonnie S. Carrera-Martin, Petitioner/Appellee, v. Cody M. Martin, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Pottawatomie County, Oklahoma. Honorable Tracy McDaniel, Trial Judge. Respondent/Appellant, Cody M. Martin (“Husband”), appeals the property division orders contained in the Decree of Dissolution of Marriage. He claims that the trial court committed error when it valued the marital home and awarded it, along with all the equity, to the Petitioner/Appellee, Bonnie S. Carrera-Martin (“Wife”). Husband asserts that the trial court also committed error when it valued and divided the enhancement in value of his separately acquired retirement account. He alleges that the overall property division awards were inequitable and constituted an abuse of discretion. We have reviewed the record and find that the trial court did not commit error when it valued the marital home, that the trial court erred on the issue of the enhancement in Husband’s retirement account and what amount thereof that was due to the efforts, skills or funds of either Party, and that the trial court also erred in failing to assign values to the Parties’ assets and debt and to make an equitable division thereof. The Decree of Dissolution is, therefore, AFFIRMED, IN PART, REVERSED, IN PART, AND the matter is REMANDED for a new trial consistent with this Opinion. Opinion by PRINCE, J.; BELL, V.C.J., and SWINTON, P.J., concur. Oct. 31, 2024
122,289 – Alexis Chamberlain, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Dayton Parts, LLC, dba Eagle Suspensions, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court Bryan County, Oklahoma. Honorable Mark R. Campbell, Trial Judge. Plaintiff/Appellant, Alexis Chamberlain, appeals the dismissal of her case against the Defendant/Appellee, Dayton Parts, LLC, d/b/a Eagle Suspensions (“Dayton”). Ms. Chamberlain alleges that Dayton was negligent and failed to provide her with a safe working environment which, as she alleges, constituted the direct and proximate cause of her injuries. Chamberlain filed her Petition on February 20, 2024. Dayton responded to Chamberlain’s Petition with a Motion to Dismiss on March 18, 2024, arguing for a dismissal based on 12 O.S. §§’s 2012 (B)(1) (lack of subject matter jurisdiction) and (B)(6) (failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted). The trial court granted the Motion to Dismiss on May 28, 2024, and entered an Amended Order on June 4, 2024 (to correct a scrivener’s error). On June 10, 2024, Chamberlain filed both a Motion to Reconsider, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 1031.1, and a Motion to Amend Petition. Thereafter, on July 1, 2024, Chamberlain filed a Petition in Error, initiating this appeal. The trial court has not, to date, ruled on the pending motions. The appearance docket sheet viewable on www.oscn.net in the Bryan County action (Case No. CJ‑2024‑33), shows that, on August 20, 2024, the trial court “stayed all pending motions” because of this appeal. Opinion by PRINCE, J.; BELL, V.C.J., and SWINTON, P.J., concur. Oct. 31, 2024
Division II
122,340 – John Wrublewski, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. The State of Oklahoma ex rel. Service Oklahoma, Defendant/Appellee, and The State of Oklahoma ex rel. Department of Public Safety, Defendant. Appeal from the District Court of Canadian County, Hon. Barbara Hatfield, Trial Judge. Appellant appeals from the district court’s order sustaining the revocation of his driving license privileges. This appeal concerns the necessary findings the district court must make, and thus concerns the evidence that must be presented to the court, pursuant to 47 O.S. 2021 & Supp. 2023 § 754(C)(2), when an appeal from the revocation of driving license privileges has been made based on the arrested person’s refusal to take a breath or blood test. Based on our review of the record, we conclude those findings and evidence are absent in this case; thus, the trial court erred in failing to set aside the driver’s license revocation. Under the facts of this case, while the evidence demonstrates Appellant consented to a refusal to take the test(s), no evidence was presented that he was informed about the consequences of that refusal as required by § 754(C)(2)(b); thus, the district court abused its discretion in not setting aside the revocation of Appellant’s driving privileges. Consequently, we reverse the court’s order. REVERSED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by BARNES, C.J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. Oct. 30, 2024
122,134 – Erick Moser, Kasey Moser, and Erick and Kasey Moser, as Next Friend and Natural Parents of B.E.M. and B.E.M., Minor Children, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. The City of Oklahoma City, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Natalie Mai, Trial Judge. In this case involving allegations that municipal sewage flooded a home, Plaintiffs appeal from the district court’s Order granting Appellee’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs also appeal from the district court’s Order denying their motion for new trial. Based on our review, genuine disputes of material fact exist and the district court therefore erred in granting summary judgment and in denying Plaintiffs’ motion for new trial. Consequently, we reverse the district court’s Order filed on March 29, 2024, denying Plaintiffs’ motion for new trial, and we reverse the court’s Order filed on October 9, 2023, granting the City’s motion for summary judgment. We remand for further proceedings. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by BARNES, C.J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. Oct. 31, 2024
121,143 — Prairie Oil & Gas, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant/Appellee, vs. Stamps Brothers Oil and Gas, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Grady County, Hon. Z. Joseph Young, Trial Judge. Stamps Brothers Oil and Gas, LLC, appeals a trial court order granting Prairie Oil and Gas, LLC’s, motion to quiet title to mineral interests. After review, we conclude the trial court’s decision is not against the clear weight of the evidence. Stamps Brothers failed to show the trial court’s decision to quiet title in favor of Prairie Oil is against the clear weight of the evidence. It further failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to allow certain testimony or that it otherwise erred. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s decision. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; FISCHER, J., and HUBER, J. (sitting by designation), concur. Oct. 31, 2024
Division III
121,678 – In the Matter of D.C., alleged deprived child, Ashley Keidel, Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Theresa Dreiling, Trial Judge. Appellant/Mother, Ashley Keidel appeals an order terminating her parental rights to her child under four years old. Clear and convincing evidence supported the order finding the child (1) had been in foster care for more than six of the twelve months preceding the filing of the motion to terminate parental rights, (2) he could not be safely returned home, and (3) termination of parental rights is in his best interests. AFFIRMED. Opinion by GOREE, J.; MITCHELL, P.J., and DOWNING, J., concur. Oct. 31, 2024
121,700 – In the Matter of D.C., alleged deprived child, Justin Wayne Creekmore, Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Theresa Dreiling, Trial Judge. Appellant/Father, Justin Creekmore appeals an order terminating his parental rights to his child under four years old. Clear and convincing evidence supported the order finding the child (1) had been in foster care for more than six of the twelve months preceding the filing of the motion to terminate parental rights, (2) he could not be safely returned home, and (3) termination of parental rights is in his best interests. AFFIRMED. Opinion by GOREE, J.; MITCHELL, P.J., and DOWNING, J., concur. Oct. 31, 2024
122,133 – Shelly A. Seaton, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Rhonda Mills, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Rogers County, Oklahoma. Honorable David Smith, Trial Judge. At issue is whether an employee can bring a tort action against a co-worker who struck her with a vehicle in their employer’s parking lot after the employee was awarded Worker’s Compensation benefits for the same injury. The trial court granted summary judgment finding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and the coworker is immune from liability because the employee’s exclusive remedy is against their employer in Worker’s Compensation Court pursuant to 85A O.S. Supp. 2019 §5(A) as the coworker was in the course and scope of employment at the time of the accident as defined in 85A 0.S. Supp. 2019 §2(13)(c). Following de novo review, we AFFIRM. Opinion by MITCHELL, P.J.; GOREE, J., and DOWNING, J., concur. Oct. 31, 2024
122,174 – Jose Bosquez, Petitioner, v. Multiple Injury Trust Fund and The Workers’ Compensation Commission, Respondents. Appeal from the District Court of Rogers County, Oklahoma. Honorable David Smith, Trial Judge. Appellant Jose Bosquez (Bosquez) appeals from an order of the Workers’ Compensation Commission (Commission), affirming the ALJ’s dismissal of his claim against the Multiple Injury Trust Fund (MITF). Bosquez filed a claim against the MITF on May 14, 2021. The MITF moved to dismiss based on Bosquez’s failure to meet the 50% threshold as required by 85A O.S.Supp.2019, § 32(D). The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found Bosquez failed to meet the 50% threshold and granted the motion to dismiss. The Commission, en banc, issued an Order Affirming Decision of Administrative Law Judge on April 23, 2024. The Commission’s Order found the ALJ’s decision was supported by a preponderance of the credible evidence and correctly applied the law, thus, was not against the clear weight of the evidence or contrary to law. After a thorough review of the record before us and applicable law, we AFFIRM. Opinion by DOWNING, J.; MITCHELL, P.J., and GOREE, J., concur. Oct. 31, 2024
Division IV
121,349 – New Leaf Investments, LLC, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Bennie Ray Ryburn, Cordelia Ryburn, and Travis Atkinson, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Cleveland County, Hon. Lori Walkley, District Judge. The plaintiff appeals the decision of the district court finding that it failed to prove all elements necessary to establish an easement by necessity through the defendants’ land. Upon review, we agree that the plaintiff did not prove an entitlement to an easement by necessity and thereby affirm. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV by BLACKWELL, J.; HUBER, P.J., and HIXON, J., concur. Oct. 30, 2024