Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | Oct. 28, 2026
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
124,329 – Christopher Nolan, Plaintiff/Appellant, v In this action for fraud, unjust enrichment, constructive trust and civil conspiracy, Plaintiff/Appellant, Chirstopher Nolen, appeals from the district court’s dismissal with prejudice in favor of Defendants/Appellees, Ashley Acker, formerly known as Ashley Nolen, Frank Acker and Angie Acker. Ashley was married to Plaintiff; the parties’ marriage was dissolved on December 16, 2021. Frank Acker and Angie Acker are Ashley’s parents (Parents). During the marriage, Plaintiff and Ashley owned a house occupied by Parents. Parents agreed to pay rent and insurance on the property. Plaintiff’s petition alleged that during the marriage, Ashley and Parents defrauded him by concealing money in a secret bank account and by failing to pay the agreed rent and insurance. The house occupied by Parents and the subject bank account were awarded to Ashley in the divorce. Defendants moved to dismiss the petition on the basis that Plaintiff’s claims were barred by issue and claim preclusion and the applicable two-year statute of limitations for fraud. The district court granted the dismissal with prejudice finding an amendment to the petition cannot remedy the defects of issue preclusion and the statute of limitations. After de novo review, this Court affirms. Opinion by BELL, J.; SWINTON, P.J., and GOREE, J., concur. Oct. 22, 2026
Division II
Division III
123,495 – Justin Humphrey and Darrell Dougherty, Petitioners/Appellants, v. Honorable Judge Jason Reese, Respondent/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Payne County, Oklahoma. Honorable Jason Reese, Trial Judge. Before the Court of Civil Appeals was an appeal filed by Justin Humphrey and Darrell Dougherty (“Appellants”) challenging the district court’s dismissal of their citizen grand-jury petition. The petition sought to convene a grand jury to investigate alleged crimes against children and their families involving state agencies, officials and others. After finding the petition facially sufficient, the district court allowed the statutory forty-five days to collect the required signatures. The district court ruled that the 2,540 signatures Appellants submitted by the deadline to be below the threshold requirement of 16% of the county’s qualified electors voting in the previous gubernatorial election and consequently dismissed the petition as null and void. The district court also denied Appellants’ request for additional time to collect signatures. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court properly applied the Oklahoma Constitution’s provisions regarding calculation of the number of signatures required. The Court also affirmed the district court’s denial of Appellants’ request for additional time to collect signatures, reiterating its holding in Grand Jury: Wilder, 2000 OK CIV APP 7, ¶¶8 and 10, 996 P.2d 951, that 38 O.S. 2021 §103 requires strict compliance with its forty-five-day signature-collection and did not give courts the authority to extend or enlarge that period. Opinion by MITCHELL, J.; DOWNING, P.J., and PRINCE, V.C.J., concur. Oct. 23, 2026
124,250 – Kyle Justin Bachman and Audra Lynn Bachman, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Lucas Dewitt and Kendall Dewitt, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Ottawa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Jennifer McAffrey, Trial Judge. Plaintiffs/Appellants, Kyle and Audra Bachman (collectively the “Bachmans”), appeal an order granting a Motion to Dismiss filed by the Defendants/Appellees, Lucas and Kendall Dewitt (collectively the “Dewitts”). The Bachmans purchased a residential property from the Dewitts and alleged the Dewitts failed to disclose a chronic flooding issue in violation of the Residential Property Condition Disclosure Act (“RPCDA”) 60 O.S. §§ 831 – 839. The Dewitts filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim and argued that they had complied with the RPCDA and that the Bachmans accepted the property in its present condition, thereby barring a petition for damages for alleged defects. The trial court granted the Motion to Dismiss and dismissed this matter with prejudice. After our review, we find the Order Granting [the Dewitts’] Motion to Dismiss should be REVERSED and the matter REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. Opinion by PRINCE, V.C.J.; MITCHELL, J., concurs and DOWNING, P.J., dissents. Oct. 23, 2026
Division IV
122,994 – Timothy John Hayes, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Jess Junior Smethers, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Oklahoma Heart Hospital, LLC, Defendant/Appellee. Proceeding to review an Order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. C. Brent Dishman, District Judge. The plaintiff, Timothy Hayes (as personal representative of the estate of Jess Junior Smethers), appeals from the court’s order accepting the jury’s verdict in favor of the Oklahoma Heart Hospital (OHH). The plaintiff alleges that the trial court committed several errors throughout trial warranting reversal and that the trial court should have disqualified itself from the case after trial but before the entry of the final journal entry of judgment. Upon review, we affirm the court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion to disqualify and the court’s order accepting the jury’s verdict as there were no instructional or evidentiary errors, the plaintiff’s due process rights were not violated, the jury’s verdict was supported by competent evidence, and several propositions of error were unpreserved or waived. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV by BLACKWELL, P.J., BARNES, J., and HUBER, J., concur. Oct. 21, 2026
123,351 – Four Score Properties, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company, Plaintiff/Appellee, vs. Boulevard Square, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company, and Jerad Lovett, an individual, Defendants/Appellants. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Amy Palumbo, Trial Judge. Defendants/appellants, Boulevard Square, LLC and Jerad Lovett, (collectively, Defendants) appeal two orders entered on July 15, 2025. First, Defendants appeal an order granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff/appellee Four Score Properties, LLC on its breach of contract claim, which also entered judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally. Second, Defendants appeal an order denying Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. We reverse the order granting summary judgment and remand for further proceedings because questions of material fact remain. The denial of a motion for summary judgment is not separately reviewable. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Oct. 23, 2026