Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | Sept. 13, 2023

Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals

Division I

120,679 – Shops at McAlester, LLC, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company and Burk Collins & Co. LTD, a Texas Limited Partnership, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Overland Corporation, an Oklahoma corporation, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Pittsburg County, Oklahoma.  Honorable Mike Hogan, Trial Judge.  Appellant, Shops at McAlester, LLC (Shops) appeals from the trial court’s Order entered on August 8, 2022, granting Overland Corporation’s (Overland) Motion to Stay Proceedings and to Compel Arbitration. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we AFFIRM. Opinion by DOWNING, J.; GOREE, P.J., SWINTON, J. , CONCUR. Sept. 6, 2023

Division II

120,059 – In re the Marriage of: Shayla Edwards, Petitioner/Appellee, v. Eric N. Edwards, Respondent/Appellant.  Appeal from the District Court of Garfield County, Hon. Jill C. Weedon, Trial Judge.  Eric N. Edwards (Father) appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion for new trial and motion to vacate the court’s order awarding custody of the parties’ two minor children to Shayla Edwards (Mother) and modifying child support.  We conclude the trial court’s final order awarding custody of the children to Mother, imposing sanctions against Father for unilaterally withholding property settlement payments to Mother, and disallowing a set-off of the overpayment against Mother’s property settlement were not clearly against the weight of the evidence or an abuse of discretion.  We also conclude Father was not denied equal protection, due process, or a fair trial.  We, thus, affirm the trial court’s denial of Father’s motion for new trial as to those issues.  However, we further conclude the trial court’s modification in the final order of a child support order it entered for a certain period during the pendency of this proceeding was a prohibited retroactive modification of child support; thus, we reverse that part of the final order and remand the cause to the trial court to determine what, if any, modifications need to be made to various findings in the final order related to the erroneous modification of the interim child support order.  AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.  Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by BARNES, V.C.J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and HIXON, J., concur. Sept. 8, 2023

Division III

121,337 – Ryan Nakvinda and Lori Nakvinda, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Charles Nichols, an individual, and, Spur Services, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Major County, Oklahoma.  Honorable Timothy Haworth, Trial Judge. Plaintiffs/Appellants, Ryan and Lori Nakvinda, appeal the Order of trial court that granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants/Appellees, Charles Nichols and Spur Services, LLC (collectively referred to as “Defendants”), on the basis of the defense of the statute of limitations.  The trial court found that the limitations period barred each of the Nakvindas’ claims for relief.  The Nakvindas filed their Petition on January 13, 2022, asserting that the Defendants entered their property without permission and cut/removed numerous trees.  The Nakvindas’ Petition included claims for trespass, wrongful injury to timber, outrage, negligence, and nuisance.  Defendants argued that the trees were cut down on January 8, 2020, more than two years prior to the institution of this action, and additionally asserted that the two‑year statute of limitations had run on each claim.  In response, the Nakvindas claimed that the Defendants continued to cut trees on their property after January 13, 2020, and that the actions taken by Defendants or their failure to remedy the damage after January 8, 2020, constituted a continuing nuisance upon their land.  The trial court granted summary judgment and the Nakvindas brought this appeal.  We find that there exists a substantial controversy of material fact regarding the time when the limitations period began to run on the Nakvindas’ claims.  We additionally find, however, that the Nakvindas’ claims are barred for events that occurred prior to January 13, 2020.  On the other hand, to the extent that additional trees were cut down or additional events occurred that could result in damages after January 13, 2020, the Nakvindas’ various tort claims are not time‑barred.  Because a nuisance arises where a person uses his own property in such a manner as to cause injury to the property of another, we further hold that, to the extent that the Nakvindas’ nuisance claim is based on the alleged actions by the Defendants on the Nakvindas’ land, the specific claim of nuisance fails as a matter of law.  Therefore, the trial court’s Order is AFFIRMED, IN PART, REVERSED, IN PART, AND the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. Opinion by PRINCE, P.J.; MITCHELL, C.J., and BELL, J., CONCUR. Sept. 8, 2023

Division IV