Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | Oct. 29, 2025
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
Division II
122,244 (Companion with Case No. 121,520) – Riverbend King, LLC, and James Flowers, Plaintiffs/Appellants, vs. Ryan Medley, Chase Mattison, Nathan Mattison, and Lokal Farms Group, LLC, Defendants/Appellees, and Robert Bud Scott and Riverbend 1100 Road Farms, LLC, Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of Seminole County, Hon. Timothy L. Olsen, Trial Judge. After a trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiffs Riverbend King, LLC, and James Flowers and against Lokal Farms Group, LLC. Plaintiffs appeal from the following pretrial decisions of the trial court: (1) dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims for alter ego and negligence per se against Ryan Medley, Chase Mattison, and Nathan Mattison (Individual Defendants); (2) granting summary judgment in favor of Individual Defendants on Plaintiffs’ breach of contract, conversion, deceit, and accounting claims, and (3) imposing sanctions against Plaintiffs. After review, we conclude the trial court erred in dismissing the alter ego and negligence per se claims against Individual Defendants without following 12 O.S.2021 § 2012(G), but did not err in granting summary judgment on the remaining claims or in awarding sanctions. The trial court’s order is therefore affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, WISEMAN, P.J.; FISCHER, J., concurs, and BLACKWELL, J., concurs in part and dissents in part. Oct. 22, 2025
122,446 – In re the Marriage of: Ryan Knight, Petitioner/Appellee, vs. Lindsey Knight, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Garfield County, Honorable Paul K. Howard, District Judge. Lindsey Knight appeals the court’s denial of her motion to modify support alimony and the court’s denial of her application for attorney fees. Ryan Knight counter-appeals the court’s denial of his attorney fees. Upon review, we find that the court erred in determining that Lindsey’s motion to modify support alimony was procedurally barred and reverse and remand for further proceedings. As the proceedings are not complete below, we vacate the denial of attorney fees and costs as to both parties and remand for reconsideration of the issue, upon proper applications, at the conclusion of the proceedings below. REVERSED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by BLACKWELL, J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. Oct. 23, 2025
122,811 – In the Matter of C.L., H.C., & S.C., alleged deprived children: Lynette Sadler, Appellant, vs. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Nichole M. Gillett, Special Judge. Lynette Sadler, the mother of the minor children at issue here, appeals the court’s order terminating her parental rights after a bench trial. She alleges that the state failed to present sufficient evidence to terminate her rights and that the trial court erred by not providing her with sufficient remedial services. Based on our review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the court’s order. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals Division II by BLACKWELL, J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. Oct. 23, 2025
122,823 – In the Matter of C.L., alleged deprived child: Jonathon Lawson, Appellant, vs. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Nichole M. Gillett, Special Judge. Jonathon Lawson, the father of the minor child at issue here, appeals the court’s order terminating his parental rights after a bench trial. He alleges that the state failed to present sufficient evidence to terminate his rights and that the trial court erred by not providing him with sufficient remedial services. Based on our review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the court’s order. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II by BLACKWELL, J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. Oct. 23, 2025
Division III
122,448 – In re the Marriage of: Chelsea Leah Bugg, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Joshua Alan Bugg, Respondent/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Garfield County, Oklahoma. Honorable Paul K. Woodward, Trial Judge. Petitioner/Appellant Chelsea Leah Bugg (Mother) challenges the court’s denial of her motion to relocate with her children, the denial of her motion to terminate joint custody with Respondent/Appellee Joshua Alan Bugg (Father), the denial of the award of sole custody to her, and she challenges the income attributed to Father for the determination of his child support obligation. The court denied Mother’s request to relocate because it determined Mother was not entitled to request relocation as she was not designated as the “primary” custodial parent in the final decree. This is error as Mother is the de jure custodial parent under 43 O.S. Supp. 2021, §118A. We remand the case for a determination of whether Mother, as the primary custodial parent, is entitled to relocate with the children. Mother met her burden to show joint custody should be severed. We remand this issue for the court to “issue a modified decree for the care, custody, and control of the child[ren] as if no such joint custody decree had been made” under 43 O.S. 2021 §109(G)(2). Finally, we remand the child support computation for a determination of both parents’ current incomes and for the issuance of an accurate and up-to-date child support computation. REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions. Opinion by MITCHELL, J.; BELL, C.J., and DOWNING, P.J., concur. Oct. 27, 2025
122,958 – In the Matter of: T.L.C. and A.P.C., Alleged Deprived Children, State of Oklahoma, Petitioner/Appellee, v. Jamaia Cress, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Washita County, Oklahoma. Honorable Donna L. Dirickson, Trial Judge. In this deprived child proceeding, Respondent/Appellant, Jamaia Cress (Mother), the biological mother of T.L.C. and A.P.C., minor children, appeals from the trial court’s order entered upon a jury verdict terminating Mother’s parental rights to the children. The jury determined clear and convincing evidence supports the court’s finding that it would be in the children’s best interest to terminate Mother’s parental rights pursuant to 10A O.S. 2021 §1-4-904(B)(5) for her failure to correct the condition of mental health instability, and pursuant to 10A O.S. 2021 §1-4-904(B)(16) for the time the children have been in foster care. Mother contends the trial court erred when it failed to sustain her motion in limine which sought to exclude evidence that Mother is a registered sex offender. Mother raised this subject for the first time during voir dire; she failed to object when State’s witnesses discussed this subject at trial; and Mother failed to offer proof regarding this subject; thus, this allegation of error is not preserved for appeal. Mother also asserts she was denied the right to a fair trial by an impartial jury because the court failed to disqualify potential jurors who stated their bias during voir dire towards registered sex offenders. Because this subject was first raised by Mother during voir dire, Mother may not seek reversal on appeal for the error she invited because it does not plainly appear the jury’s verdict was influenced by this subject. Finally, Mother does not challenge the clear and convincing evidence supporting the jury’s verdict. After reviewing the record, this Court holds the clear and convincing evidence supports the trial court’s determination that it is in the children’s best interest to terminate Mother’s parental rights pursuant to §1-4-904(B)(5) and (B)(16). The trial court’s order is AFFIRMED. Opinion by BELL, C.J.; DOWNING, P.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. Oct. 27, 2025
Division IV
123,227 – James Nelson Reynolds, Petitioner/Appellant, vs. State of Oklahoma, ex rel., Oklahoma State Board of Cosmetology and Barbering, Respondent/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Richard Ogden, Trial Judge. In this accelerated appeal, Appellant seeks review of the district court’s dismissal of his Petition seeking judicial review of a final agency order due to lack of service. The district court correctly dismissed with prejudice Plaintiffs cause of action for Judicial Review of a final agency order for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the Board was not served with Reynolds’ Petition in accordance with 75 O.S.2021, § 318(C), and Reynolds’ Amended Petition was filed out of time in violation of 75 O.S.2021, § 318 (B)(2). Such lack of service is incurable and fatal to Reynolds’ appeal of a final agency order. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s Journal Entry of May 28, 2025. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, V.C.J.; BARNES, P.J., and HUBER, J., concur. Oct. 23, 2025
122,497 – Colin Lee Bashant, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. David Prater (in his official capacity), Mr. Keel, Lou (in his official capacity) and Does 1-99, et al., Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Sheila Stinson, Trial Judge. Colin Lee Bashant, pro se, appeals a district court order filed on August 13, 2024, which dismissed this action, without prejudice, pursuant to 12 O.S.2021 § 1083 for failure to prosecute. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the district court’s order. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HUBER, J.; BARNES, P.J., and HIXON, V.C.J., concur. Oct. 23, 2025
122,528 – Karen Rattan, an individual, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Randall Franklin, an individual, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. C. Brent Dishman, Trial Judge. Defendant appeals from the district court’s order denying his Motion to Vacate Default Judgment. We are guided by the following precepts: default judgments are not favored; vacation of a default judgment is different from vacation of a judgment where the parties have had at least one opportunity to be heard on the merits; judicial discretion to vacate a default judgment should always be exercised so as to promote the ends of justice; and a much stronger showing of abuse of discretion must be made where a judgment has been set aside than where it has not. We must also consider whether substantial hardship would result from granting or refusing to grant the motion to vacate. Application of these principles to the specific facts and circumstances of the present case leads to the conclusion that the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion to vacate. Therefore, we reverse the district court’s order and remand for further proceedings. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by BARNES, P.J.; HIXON, V.C.J., and HUBER, J., concur. Oct. 23, 2025
121,605 – (Companion with Case No. 121,606). Casillas Petroleum Resource Partners, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and CPRP Services, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Plaintiffs/Appellees, vs. Loren B. Brown Revocable Trust; The Ethel Brown Revocable Trust; and Bobby Boydston, as Trustee, Defendants/Appellants, appeal from the District Court of McClain County, Hon. Charles Gray, Trial Judge. Defendants/Appellants, Loren B. Brown Revocable Trust, The Ethel Brown Revocable Trust, and Bobby Boydston, as trustee, appeal the following decisions from the district court: (1) the decision to grant Plaintiffs’ motion to strike Defendants’ amended answer and counterclaim; (2) the denial of Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ claim for declaratory relief; (3) the decision to deny Defendants’ motion for in-camera review of certain documents on Plaintiffs’ privilege log; and (4) the order denying Defendants’ motion to reopen discovery and extend scheduling order deadlines. Upon review of the record and consideration of applicable law, we affirm these decisions. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HUBER, J.; BARNES, P.J., and HIXON, V.C.J., concur. Oct. 24, 2025
121,606 – (Companion with Case No. 121,605). Casillas Petroleum Resource Partners, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and CPRP Services, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Plaintiffs/Appellees, vs. Loren B. Brown Revocable Trust; The Ethel Brown Revocable Trust; and Bobby Boydston, as Trustee, Defendants/Appellants, appeal from the District Court of McClain County, Hon. Charles Gray, Trial Judge. Defendants/Appellants, Loren B. Brown Revocable Trust, The Ethel Brown Revocable Trust, and Bobby Boydston, as trustee, appeal findings of fact and conclusions of law, which granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs/appellees, Casillas Petroleum Resource Partners, LLC, and CPRP Services, LLC (collectively, Plaintiffs). Upon review of the record and consideration of applicable law, we conclude that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs. The order containing the findings of fact and conclusions of law granting judgment in favor of Plaintiffs is affirmed. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HUBER, J.; BARNES, P.J., and HIXON, V.C.J., concur. Oct. 24, 2025