Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | Oct. 8, 2025
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
122,093 – Scott O. Sapulpa, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Gannett Co., Inc., Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Muskogee County, Oklahoma. Honorable J. Jeffrey Peyton, Trial Judge. This appeal stems from an award of costs following a jury verdict against the defendant newspaper for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The underlying facts stem from the reporting by the newspaper of a hate-filled rant of racist and vulgar statements that were disturbingly spewed over the internet by a sports announcer. The hate-filled rant occurred during a “hot mic” moment prior to a girl’s high school basketball game. The long-time Oklahoma City, Oklahoma newspaper, The Oklahoman, posted a story concerning the incident the next day on its web-based breaking news platform and erroneously attributed the racist and vulgar comments to the Appellee/Plaintiff, Scott Sapulpa. A jury found in favor of Sapulpa and returned a verdict against the Appellant/Defendant, Gannett Co., Inc., the owner of The Oklahoman, awarding actual damages in the sum of $5 million and punitive damages in the sum of $20 million. Following the entry of judgment, the trial court granted Sapulpa an award of cost in the total sum of 257,300.00. Based on our review of 12 O.S. § 942, and applicable case law, we set aside $214,524.58, of the awarded costs and affirm the cost award in all other respects. Thus, the trial court’s Judgment Awarding Prevailing Party Costs, dated March 20, 2024, is REVERSED, IN PART, AND AFFIRMED, IN PART, AND REMANDED as follows. We specifically set aside $214,524.58, of the awarded costs, reversing the cost award to the extent that it granted costs for expenses we find to not be statutorily authorized and affirm the cost award in all other respects. The matter is remanded to the trial court for the entry of a Revised Judgment Award Prevailing Party Costs, consistent with the views expressed in this Opinion. Opinion by PRINCE, J.; GOREE, P.J., and SWINTON, J. CONCUR. October 2, 2025
123,319 – Lyndel Runyan and Meredith Runyan, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. Jami A. Pittman-Johnson, aka Jami A. Pittman, and Billy Johnson, Husband and Wife, Defendants/Appellants. Appeal from the District Court of Murray County, Oklahoma. Honorable Mark Melton, Trial Judge. Jami A. Pittman-Johnson and Billy Johnson (Defendants/Appellants) (collectively referred to as “the Johnsons”) have appealed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment finding a restrictive covenant to be invalid and unenforceable. The restrictive covenant provided that the Subject Property would not be used to operate a convenience store “. . . for as long as the grantor shall own and occupy and do business, as a convenience store, any property or convenience store within an area of two blocks from the . . .” Subject Property. Lyndel and Meredith Runyan (Plaintiffs/Appellees) (collectively referred to as “the Runyans”) subsequently purchased the Subject Property (which is allegedly burdened by the covenant) and took preliminary steps to build a convenience store there. The dispute here centers on the ownership and operation of the convenience store owned by the Johnsons which, essentially, sits catty-corner and across the street from the Subject Property. The Runyans initiated this action to have a judicial declaration that the restrictive covenant was unenforceable based upon their claim that the Johnsons, as individuals and the original “grantors” of the Subject Property, did not hold title to the real property upon which their convenience store was located at the time of the Warranty Deed. We hold that the terms of the covenant contained in the Warranty Deed are not ambiguous as a matter of law and that the trial court properly held that “the covenant [is] invalid and of no force and effect against the Plaintiffs.” We, thus, find the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment. The trial court’s Order is, accordingly, AFFIRMED. Opinion by PRINCE, J.; GOREE, P.J., CONCURS IN RESULT and BELL, C.J. (sitting by designation), CONCURS. October 2, 2025
Division II
122,232 – Bentson Properties, LLC, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Chicago Title Insurance Company, Chicago Title Oklahoma Co., Fidelity National Financial, Inc. d/b/a Fidelity National Law Group, Patrick Joost, Gerald Sager, PKK Holdings, LLC, Pamel Kloiber, and Michael Kloiber, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Honorable Anthony L. Bonner, District Judge. Bentson Properties, LLC, appeals the court’s grant of the defendants’ motions to dismiss. Upon review, we find that court properly dismissed Bentson Properties’ claims against Fidelity National Financial Inc., d/b/a Fidelity National Law Group, Patrick Joost, and Gerald Sager (collectively, the Fidelity defendants) for breach of insurance contract and bad faith, but should have allowed Bentson leave to amend its petition to address deficiencies regarding its other claims against the Fidelity defendants and Chicago Title Insurance Company (CTIC) and Chicago Title Oklahoma Company (CTOC) (collectively, Chicago Title). AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by BLACKWELL, J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. October 1, 2025
122,296 – In re: The Marriage of Lori Williams, Plaintiff/Appellee, vs. Robert Williams, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Sharon Wigdor Byers, Special Judge. Robert Williams appeals to this Court from a decision of the district court finding him guilty of indirect contempt for willfully failing to pay child support. Upon review, we affirm. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II by BLACKWELL, J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. October 1, 2025
Division III
122,380 – Cory Snelson and Jesse Snelson, Petitioners/Appellees, v. Deborah Phelan, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Washington County, Oklahoma. Honorable Russell Vaclaw, Trial Judge. Appellant, Deborah Phelan, appeals the trial court’s granting of a Final Order of Protection to Appellants, Cory and Jesse Snelson on June 25, 2024. After a thorough review of the record and the law, this Court AFFIRMS the trial court’s final order. Opinion by DOWNING, P.J.; BELL, C.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. October 7, 2025
Division IV
122,256 – In re the Marriage of: Christy Nicole Nixon, Petitioner, vs. William Kyle Lopez, Respondent/Appellee, and Rob B. Hopkins, Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Cleveland County, Hon. Thad Balkman, Trial Judge. Attorney Rob B. Hopkins (Hopkins) appeals an award of attorney’s fees entered in a divorce proceeding between client Christy Nicole Nixon (Wife) and William Kyle Lopez (Husband). The trial court entered an award of fees directly against Hopkins for conduct which the trial court determined unnecessarily complicated and delayed proceedings and made them needlessly vexatious. On review of the record, we affirm the trial court’s award pursuant to its inherent authority to sanction vexatious conduct and reject Hopkins’ propositions of error in their entirety. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, HIXON, V.C.J.; BARNES, P.J., and HUBER, J., concur. October 1, 2025
123,069 – Christopher Nolen, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Frank Acker, Angie Acker and Ashley Acker, also known as Ashley Nolen, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Cleveland County, Hon. Jeff Virgin, Trial Judge. Christopher Nolen, Plaintiff/Appellant, appeals from the trial court’s Journal Entry granting the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants/Appellees. The trial court issued its Journal Entry, merely stating its findings as follows: “Petitioner’s [Defendants’] Motion is granted. This matter is hereby dismissed.” Accordingly, there is no finding within the order that either the defect is incurable or that Husband should be given leave to amend, nor was a time period prescribed within which Plaintiff could attempt to remedy any outstanding defect in his Petition. The Journal Entry cannot be construed as a final order, thus it is not appealable. APPEAL DISMISSED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, HIXON, V.C.J.; BARNES, P.J., and HUBER, J., concur. October 3, 2025