Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | Oct. 23, 2024
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
121,799 – In re the matter of N.J.L., a minor child: Sheldon Collins, Petitioner/Appellee, v. Meredith Langenheim, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Mary Ann Godsby, Trial Judge. In this paternity action, Appellant/Respondent, Meredith Langenheim (Mother), appeals from the trial court’s decree establishing the paternity of Petitioner/Appellee, Sheldon Collins (Father), to the minor child N.J.L., born September 2022; granting Mother custody of the child; establishing child support; and granting Father limited, supervised visitation with a review on a date certain six (6) months from the entry of the decree. Mother appeals from the portion of the decree setting the review. The court stated the purpose of the review was to potentially enlarge Father’s visitation time, remove supervision, and allow out-of-state visitation. On appeal, Mother asserts the trial court’s order for a review denied her due process of law and exceeded the court’s jurisdiction because Father did not request such relief. We hold the trial court had the jurisdiction to order the review. We further find the trial court did not abuse its discretion or deny Mother due process of law when the court sua sponte ordered the review of Father’s visitation. The trial court’s decree is AFFIRMED, and this matter is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings. Opinion by BELL, VICE-CHIEF JUDGE; SWINTON, P.J., and PRINCE, J., concur. October 16, 2024
121,809 – Territory Resources, LLC, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Mary Jane Tritsch and R.H. Harbaugh, Jr., Trustees of the Mary Jane Tritsch Trust dated September 3, 1952, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Grady County. Honorable Kory S. Kirkland, Judge. This appeal emanates from the refusal of well operator Plaintiff/Appellant, Territory Resources, LLC (Territory), to allow non-operating working interest owner Defendants/Appellees, Mary Jane Tritsch and R.H. Harbaugh, Jr., as trustees of the Mary Jane Tritsch Trust (Trust), to participate in the recompletion of a well. Territory initiated this declaratory judgment and quiet title action against Trust, which then counter-claimed for breach of contract, quiet title, an accounting, and for its share of the proceeds from the well’s production. The trial court granted summary judgment to Trust, holding Territory is liable to Trust for its percentage interest in the well from November 2018 to present. The court awarded Trust $364,385.42, which included unpaid proceeds from production plus interest, reduced by recompletion and operating expenses. Territory now appeals, claiming Trust previously waived its right to participate in the well recompletion. Trust counter-appeals, contending the trial court erred in its interest calculation. We hold the trial court correctly determined that Territory is bound by the letter agreement signed by its predecessor, Chesapeake, which granted Trust the right to participate in any future uphole recompletion projects. We reject Territory’s contention that the letter agreement altered the joint operating agreement; it simply altered the rights of Chesapeake and Trust vis-à-vis each other. We also find the evidentiary material supports the trial court’s liability ruling. With respect to the damages award, we hold the trial court employed the wrong statutory provision in awarding prejudgment interest for the period of November 2018 to January 11, 2023. The marketability of Trust’s title was never in question. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED. Opinion by BELL, V.C.J.; SWINTON, P.J., and PRINCE, J., concur. October 22, 2024
Division II
120,595 – Amber Lezlie Bowen and Minor Children, Petitioner/Appellee, vs. Michael Lance Holland, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from Order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Sara Bondurant, Trial Judge. Michael Lance Holland appeals from a final order of protection entered against him by the district court in favor of Amber Lezlie Bowen. Holland argues that entry of a five-year protective order in favor of Bowen is not supported by the statutorily-required evidence and constitutes an abuse of the district court’s discretion. We find no abuse of discretion and affirm the district court’s order. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II by FISCHER, J.; BARNES, C.J., and WISEMAN, P.J., concur. October 18, 2024
121,968 – Scott D. Byrd, Petitioner, vs. Multiple Injury Trust Fund, Respondent. Appeal from an order of the Workers’ Compensation Commission En Banc. Claimant Scott D. Byrd appeals an order of the Workers’ Compensation Commission En Banc affirming the decision of the Administrative Law Judge finding he is not permanently and totally disabled and thus not entitled to Multiple Injury Trust Fund benefits. After review, we conclude there is substantial evidence to support the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission and the decision is otherwise free of error. Accordingly, we affirm the WCC’s order. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; BARNES, C.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. October 22, 2024
Division III
121,486 – In the Matter of the Estate of: Ruth Helen Steichen, deceased, Mary Steichen and Thomas Steichen, Personal Representative of the Estate of Ruth Helen Steichen, Appellants, Sarah Petrich, Ann Petrich, Nathan Petrich, Stacia Steichen, Michael Steichen, and Adam Steichen, Appellants, v. Larry Steichen, Linda Petrich, and Rebecca Bolene Curry, Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Kay County, Oklahoma. Honorable Lee Turner, Trial Judge. At issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion for new trial of the grandchildren of a decedent in the probate of the grandmother’s estate. The court, in its underlying order, thoroughly articulated the relevant provisions of the decedent’s will and the applicable law in its determination that the grandchildren lack standing because they are not vested beneficiaries of their grandmother’s estate. Therefore, we find no reversable error of law or abuse of discretion and affirm under Oklahoma Supreme Court Rule 1.202(d) and ( e), 12 O.S. 2011, Ch. 15, App. 1. Opinion by MITCHELL, P.J.; GOREE, J., and DOWNING, J., concur. October 18, 2024
121,617 – Charles Bode, an individual, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Farmers Elevator Company, Ames Oklahoma, a Cooperative Marketing Association, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Major County, Oklahoma. Honorable Tim Haworth, Trial Judge. Charles Bode, Plaintiff/Appellant, sued Farmers Elevator Company, Defendant/Appellee, for strict liability and negligence arising from the destruction of his home due to a propane bottle that exploded. The district court’s judgment in favor of Defendant after a non-jury trial was supported by competent evidence and is AFFIRMED. Opinion by GOREE, J.; MITCHELL, P.J., and DOWNING, J., concur. October 18, 2024
121,898 – Universal Management & Maintenance Co., Inc., an Oklahoma Corporation, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Tinker Federal Credit Union, Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff/Cross-Appellant, The Unknown Heirs, Executors, Administrators, Assigns, and Successors of Mary Ann Smith, Deceased; Stacy Ann Byrum, aka Stacy Barker, an individual; USAA Federal Savings Bank, and John Doe, Occupant(s) of the Premises, Defendants, and Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Garfield County, Oklahoma. Honorable Tom Newby, Trial Judge. Plaintiff/Appellant Universal Management and Maintenance Co., Inc. (UMM) appeals from an order granting summary judgment to Appellee Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC (Lakeview). Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff/Cross-Appellant Tinker Federal Credit Union (TFCU) cross-appeals from the same order. UMM and TFCU allege the court erred by finding Lakeview has a first mortgage lien that takes priority over UMM and TFCU’s liens. We agree. The evidentiary materials attached to Lakeview’s petition and motion for summary judgment fail to demonstrate it had standing to bring suit. Further, the court abused its discretion by consolidating Lakeview’s lawsuit into UMM and TFCU’s lawsuit, rather than dismissing it as an impermissible collateral attack on the final orders in UMM and TFCU’s pending action. Accordingly, we REVERSE AND REMAND. Opinion by MITCHELL, P.J.; GOREE, J., and DOWNING, J., concur. October 18, 2024
Division IV