Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | Sept. 10, 2025
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
Division II
Division III
122,869 – The Bank of New York, Trust U/A Dated 12/2/01 (EQCC Trust 2001-2), Plaintiff, DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc., Plaintiff/Appellee/Counter-Appellant, v. Annetta J. Beeler A/K/A Annetta Beeler A/K/A Annetta Jean Beeler, Defendant/Appellant/Counter-Appellee, John Doe, her spouse if married, Occupants of the Premises, Aames Capital Corporation f/k/a Aames Funding Corporation, Associates First Capital Corporation, a Delaware Corporation Successor by reason of Merger with Associates Financial Services Company, Inc., Successor by reason of Merger with Associates Financial Services Company of Oklahoma, Inc., Arveset Bank, and Danny Beeler, Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Caroline Wall, Trial Judge. In this foreclosure action, Defendant/Appellant/Counter-Appellee, Annetta J. Beeler, appeals from the trial court’s final journal entry of judgment in favor of Plaintiff, The Bank of New York, Trust U/A dated 12/2/01 (EQCC Trust 2001-2)(Bank) and Plaintiff/Appellee/Counter-Appellant, DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc. (DLJ), on Defendant’s counterclaims for wrongful foreclosure and malicious prosecution. DLJ counter-appeals from the trial court’s judgment in favor of Defendant on her affirmative defense that the savings statute at 12 O.S. 2021 §100 failed to revive the original foreclosure action filed in 2005; thus Plaintiffs’ current foreclosure action is barred by the six (6) year statute of limitations. After de novo review of the record, this Court reverses the trial court’s judgment in favor of Defendant and remands the foreclosure proceeding to the trial court for further proceedings. This Court affirms the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs on Defendant’s counterclaims. We AFFIRM.Opinion by BELL, C.J.; DOWNING, P.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. Sept. 5, 2025
Division IV
122,417 (Consolidated with Case No. 122,419 and Case No. 122,420) – In the Matter of N.H. and S.H., Alleged Deprived Children: Martino Collins, Appellant,v. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Kaitlyn G. Allen, Trial Judge. In this consolidated termination of parental rights proceeding, Martino Collins (Father Collins), Seleana Hutton (Mother), and Cordero Harvey (Father Harvey) (collectively, the Parents) appeal from separate orders entered upon a jury verdict terminating their respective parental rights to the minor children, N.H., S.H. (STH), H.H., and S.H. (collectively, the Children). For the reasons discussed herein, we conclude State presented clear and convincing evidence upon which the jury found: Father Collins’ parental rights should be terminated pursuant to 10A O.S. 2021 § 1-4-904(A) & (B)(16); Father Harvey’s parental rights should be terminated pursuant to 10A O.S. § 1-4-904(A) & (B)(5), failure to correct the condition of threat of harm, and pursuant to § 1-4-904(A) & (B)(17); Mother’s parental rights should be terminated pursuant to 10A O.S. § 1-4-904(A) & (B)(5), failure to correct the condition of substance abuse, and pursuant to § 1-4-904(A) & (B)(16)&(17). We further conclude State presented clear and convincing evidence that termination of each Parent’s parental rights is in the best interest of their respective children. Additionally, we conclude the evidentiary, procedural due process, disqualification of counsel, and ineffective assistance of counsel arguments raised by the respective Parents do not provide a basis for reversal of the district court’s orders terminating their parental rights. Accordingly, we affirm the order terminating Father Collins’ parental rights to N.H. and STH; we affirm the order terminating Father Harvey’s parental rights to S.H.; and we affirm the order terminating Mother’s parental rights to the Children. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by BARNES, P.J.; HIXON, V.C.J., and HUBER, J., concur. 122,417 (Consolidated with Case No. 122,419 and Case No. 122,420) – In the Matter of N.H. and S.H., Alleged Deprived Children: Martino Collins, Appellant,v. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Kaitlyn G. Allen, Trial Judge. In this consolidated termination of parental rights proceeding, Martino Collins (Father Collins), Seleana Hutton (Mother), and Cordero Harvey (Father Harvey) (collectively, the Parents) appeal from separate orders entered upon a jury verdict terminating their respective parental rights to the minor children, N.H., S.H. (STH), H.H., and S.H. (collectively, the Children). For the reasons discussed herein, we conclude State presented clear and convincing evidence upon which the jury found: Father Collins’ parental rights should be terminated pursuant to 10A O.S. 2021 § 1-4-904(A) & (B)(16); Father Harvey’s parental rights should be terminated pursuant to 10A O.S. § 1-4-904(A) & (B)(5), failure to correct the condition of threat of harm, and pursuant to § 1-4-904(A) & (B)(17); Mother’s parental rights should be terminated pursuant to 10A O.S. § 1-4-904(A) & (B)(5), failure to correct the condition of substance abuse, and pursuant to § 1-4-904(A) & (B)(16)&(17). We further conclude State presented clear and convincing evidence that termination of each Parent’s parental rights is in the best interest of their respective children. Additionally, we conclude the evidentiary, procedural due process, disqualification of counsel, and ineffective assistance of counsel arguments raised by the respective Parents do not provide a basis for reversal of the district court’s orders terminating their parental rights. Accordingly, we affirm the order terminating Father Collins’ parental rights to N.H. and STH; we affirm the order terminating Father Harvey’s parental rights to S.H.; and we affirm the order terminating Mother’s parental rights to the Children. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by BARNES, P.J.; HIXON, V.C.J., and HUBER, J., concur. Sept. 4, 2025.
122,398 – In the Matter of the Estate of Roy S. Baxley, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Appellant, vs. Barbara Baxley-Adkins and James R. Baxley, Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Thomas C. Riesen, Trial Judge. Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (Southwestern) appeals the trial court’s Order awarding attorney fees and costs in favor of Barbara Baxley-Adkins and James R. Baxley (Co-Personal Representatives). Prior to this, the Co-Personal Representatives sought reformation of a deed that Roy S. Baxley improperly executed which resulted in a conveyance not recognized by Oklahoma law. Southwestern claimed that reformation was not appropriate and that they should receive proceeds of the sale of the deeded land as residuary beneficiaries. The trial court determined that reformation was proper, and the Co-Personal Representatives subsequently sought fees and costs. The trial court awarded the Co-Personal Representatives fees and costs incurred in the deed reformation action. Southwestern asserts that the Co-Personal Representatives are not legally entitled to fees and costs under applicable law and that, assuming fees and costs are recoverable, the award includes more fees and costs than the Co-Personal Representatives were entitled. On review of the record and applicable law, we reverse the Order awarding the Co-Personal Representatives costs and fees incurred in the deed reformation. REVERSED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, HIXON, V.C.J.; BARNES, P.J., and HUBER, J., concur. Sept. 5, 2025