Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | Oct. 16, 2024
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
121,544 – Stanley D. Monroe, Plaintiff/Appellee v. Frederick Alan Yerton, Defendant/Appellant. Defendant/Appellant Frederick Alan Yerton appeals from an order denying his motion for new trial on Plaintiff/Appellee Stanley D. Monroe’s motion for a removal of the homestead exemption on Yerton’s property. Because the trial court failed to make findings of fact as to the abandonment of the homestead, it was an error to deny Yerton’s motion for new trial. We reverse and remand this matter to the trial court with directions to conduct a new evidentiary hearing to determine whether Monroe can establish by clear and convincing evidence that Yerton abandoned the property as his homestead. Opinion by SWINTON, P.J.; BELL, V.C.J., and PRINCE, J., concur. October 11, 2024
121,660 – Edna Johnico, Mildred L. King, Louis Johnico, Karen R. Moctezuma, Rhonda K. Esquivel, and Sherri I Foley, Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. Jerry D. Hall, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Pushmataha County, Oklahoma. Honorable Michael D. Deberry, Trial Judge. This is a partition action. Defendant/Appellant, Jerry D. Hall, appeals a Journal Entry and a subsequent Order Denying Motion for New Trial. Mr. Hall was the owner of a one-half undivided fee simple interest in approximately eighty (80) acres of land. Commissioners were appointed by the trial court and they submitted a Report to the trial court and recommended division of the land. Mr. Hall objected and asserted that the land that he would receive pursuant to the Commissioners’ Report was less valuable than the land that would be granted to Plaintiffs/Appellees, Edna Johnico, Mildred L. King, Louis Johnico, Karen R. Moctezuma, Rhonda k. Esquivel, and Sherri I. Foley (“the Johnico Descendants.”). The trial court disagreed and divided the land into two tracts of approximately forty (40) acres each in accordance with the Commissioners’ Report. Mr. Hall received approximately forty (40) acres and the the Johnico Descendants also received approximately forty (40) acres. We have reviewed the record and applicable law and find that the orders of the trial court do not constitute error. We, therefore, AFFIRM the Journal Entry and the Order Denying Motion for New Trial. Opinion by PRINCE, J.; BELL, V.C.J., and SWINTON, P.J., concur. October 11, 2024
121,895 – Robin D. Steward, as Trustee of the Robin D. Steward Family Trust, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant/Appellant, v. McBride Homes, LLC, Defendant/Counter-Claimant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Cleveland County, Oklahoma. Honorable Thad Balkman, Trial Judge. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant/Appellant Robin D. Steward, as Trustee of the Robin D. Steward Family Trust, appeals from summary judgment entered in favor of Defendant/Counter-Claimant/Appellee McBride Homes, LLC (Builder) on Steward’s claims for an injunction, breach of restrictive covenants, and encroachment. The trial court found that laches barred Steward’s claim for injunctive relief because she had notice of McBride’s intent to build on the lot line but failed to object until construction was underway. The undisputed material facts show Builder was entitled to judgment as a matter of law and therefore we affirm. Opinion by SWINTON, P.J.; BELL, V.C.J., concurs and PRINCE, J., concurs in part and dissents in part. October 11, 2024
121,752 – William Lunn, individually and as natural parent, next friend, and personal representative of the estate of Kathryn Lillian Lunn and the estate of Adrienne Badeen Lunn and the estate of Michael Dixon Lunn, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Continental Motors, Inc. Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Caroline Wall, Trial Judge. Continental Motors, Inc., (Defendant/Appellant) has appealed the trial court’s October 13, 2023 Order denying Continental’s Motion for Attorney Fees. The instant appeal is the second appeal arising from the underlying action, but this appeal concerns only the procedural interpretation of 12 O.S. § 1101.1. Continental made a collective, unapportioned Offer of Judgment to William Lunn and the estates of his three minor children (Plaintiffs/Appellees) in the amount of $300,000.00, which Lunn rejected. At trial, the jury found in favor of Continental, after which Continental filed a Motion for Attorney Fees pursuant § 1101.1(A), citing to the fact that the final judgment was less than Continental’s Offer of Judgment. The trial court denied Continental’s Motion, finding the unapportioned offer to be invalid. We find that, in accordance with existing Oklahoma case law, Continental’s unapportioned Offer of Judgment to William Lunn and the estates of his three minor children was, indeed, invalid under 12 O.S. § 1101.1(A), and the trial court’s denial of Continental’s Motion for Attorney Fees was proper. Opinion by PRINCE, J.; BELL, V.C.J., and SWINTON, P.J., concur. October 15, 2024
Division II
121,877 – Vicki Corbin, individually, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. City of Moore and Veolia Water North America-Central, LLC, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Cleveland County, Hon. Michael D. Tupper, Trial Judge. In this case involving allegations of sewage backups, Vicki Corbin appeals from the district court’s Journal Entry of Judgment granting the motions for summary judgment of City of Moore and Veolia Water North America-Central, LLC (Veolia). Ms. Corbin also appeals from the district court’s Order denying her motion to reconsider. Based on our de novo review, we conclude the City’s and Veolia’s assertion that it is an undisputed material fact that a certain sewer line, or valve, in Ms. Corbin’s garage caused the sewage backups is unsupported by the evidentiary materials presented. Therefore, their motions fail to show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Consequently, we reverse the district court’s orders granting summary judgment in favor of the City and Veolia and denying Ms. Corbin’s motion to reconsider. We remand this case to the district court 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. October 10, 2024
Division III
Division IV
121,330 – Eugenia Britt, individually, as surviving child of George Gianos, deceased, and on behalf of the Estate of George Gianos; Anna Gianos, surviving spouse of George Gianos, deceased; Fotini Gianos, surviving child of George Gianos, deceased, Plaintiffs/Appellees, vs. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc, Eskridge Lexus of Oklahoma City; Eskridge, Inc.; Eskridge Auto Group, Inc.; and Eskridge Imports, Inc., Defendants/Appellants, and Toyota Motor Sales North America, Inc.; Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Inc.; Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc., Defendants. Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Anthony Bonner, Trial Judge. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.; Eskridge Lexus of Oklahoma City; Eskridge, Inc.; Eskridge Auto Group, Inc.; and Eskridge Imports, Inc. (Defendants) appeal judgment entered in favor of Plaintiffs Eugenia Britt – Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of George Gianos; Anna Gianos, and Fotini Gianos in this wrongful death action, as well as denial of their Motion to Vacate Judgment or in the Alternative Motion for New Trial or Remittitur. We find the trial court committed reversible error by instructing the jury to apportion damages between the three individual Plaintiffs and the “Estate” of Mr. Gianos and through the court’s instruction regarding seat belt non-use on their claims of manufacturer’s products liability. Thus, the trial court abused its discretion by denying Defendants’ Motion for New Trial. We vacate the trial court’s judgment and remand for proceedings consistent with our Opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, J.; HUBER, P.J., concurs, and BLACKWELL, J., dissents. October 10, 2024
121,271 – Storm Shield Roofing and Restoration, Inc., Plaintiff, vs. Gary M. Deshazer, Jr., Defendant, and Tracy W. Robinett, P.C., d/b/a Robinett, Swartz & Duren, Intervenor/Appellee, vs. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless Services, Garnishee/Appellant. Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Pottowatomie County, Hon John G. Canavan. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless Services (Verizon) appeals the district court’s denial of its motion to vacate a default judgment assigning a $51,945.41 judgment liability to Verizon for failure to respond to an order compelling discovery during an ongoing garnishment proceeding. On review, we find that under Hagar v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 1993 OK 48, 853 P.2d 768, Verizon was entitled to notice of the motion and an opportunity to appear before the trial court could grant the motion for default. We therefore reverse the denial of the motion to vacate. REVERSED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV by BLACKWELL, J.; HUBER, P.J., and HIXON, J., concur. October 11, 2024
121,781 – Jason Mills and Melissa Mills, Plaintiffs, vs. J-M Mfg. Co., Inc. d/b/a JM Eagle and Rainmakers Sales, Inc., Defendants/Appellees, and Charter Oak Production Co., LLC, Defendant/Appellant, and C&M Roustabout Services, LLC; SPL Control LLC; and John Does 2-15, Defendants. Appeal from an Order of the District Court of McClain County, Oklahoma, Hon. Leah Edwards, Trial Judge. Charter Oak Production Co. LLC appeals the summary judgment of the district court that it cannot bring an indemnity claim against pipe manufacturer J-M Mfg. Co., Inc. d/b/a JM Eagle. We hold that the non-delegable duty of Charter Oak to pay damages occasioned purely by JM Eagle’s allegedly defective product creates the legal relationship required to bring an indemnity claim against JM Eagle. The summary judgment of the court is reversed, and we remand this matter for further proceedings. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV by BLACKWELL, J.; HUBER, P.J., and FISCHER, J. (sitting by designation), concur. October 11, 2024
121, 764 – In the Matter of K.G. & J.G, Alleged Deprived Children: Jessica Goodall, Appellant, vs. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Seminole County, Hon. Christopher Anderson, Special Judge. In this deprived child proceeding, Jessica Goodall appeals from an order of the district court, entered after jury verdict, terminating her parental rights to her minor children, J.G. and K.G. After careful review of the record, we affirm. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV by BLACKWELL, J.; HUBER, P.J., and HIXON, J., concur. October 11, 2024