Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | Sept. 3, 2025
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
122,789 – In the Matter of: I.N., & K.N., alleged deprived children, India Washington, Appellant, vs. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Kevin Gray, Trial Judge. India Washington, Appellant, (Mother) appeals an order terminating her parental rights to I.N. and K.N. The state’s evidence was sufficient to prove termination was in the children’s best interests. The Indian Child Welfare Act was complied with, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied a motion for separate trials. AFFIRMED. Opinion by GOREE, P.J.; SWINTON, J., and PRINCE, J., concur. Aug. 28, 2025
122,804 – In the Matter of: I.N., & K.N., alleged deprived children, Cameron Deon Newton, Appellant, vs. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Kevin Gray, Trial Judge. Cameron Newton, Appellant, (Father) appeals an order terminating his parental rights to I.N. and K.N. The state’s interest in protecting the children outweighed Father’s interest in enforcing the time limitations of Title 10A O.S. §1-4-601(B)(1). The evidence supported termination, The Indian Child Welfare Act was complied with, and Father was not denied effective assistance of counsel. AFFIRMED. Opinion by GOREE, P.J.; SWINTON, J., and PRINCE, J., concur. Aug. 28, 2025
122,667 – In the Matter of V.B., Alleged Deprived Child, Shadamecia Lacole Bennett, Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Kevin Gray, Trial Judge. Shadamecia Lacole Bennett (Appellant) (hereinafter “Mother”), natural mother of V.B., has appealed the trial court’s grant of a permanent guardianship placing the minor child with her paternal grandparents. Mother alleged the trial court erred in granting the permanent guardianship because the State had not met its requisite burden of demonstrating that she failed to “substantially correct” the conditions which led to V.B.’s deprived child adjudication. Mother also alleged the State did not meet the heightened procedural and substantive requirements imposed by the Indian Child Welfare Act. We find no error in the trial court’s Order and it is, accordingly, AFFIRMED. Opinion by PRINCE, J.; GOREE, P.J., and SWINTON, J., concur. Aug. 28, 2025
Division II
121,979 – Oklahoma Turnpike Authority, Plaintiff/Appellant vs. Joe Kredi aka Joseph Kreke, Jr.; Lori Beth Kreke; Jane Doe Kreke, wife of Joe Kreke, Jr., if any; John Doe Kreke, husband of Lori Beth Kreke, if any; Occupant(s) of the Premises; Oklahoma Gas and Electric Co.; Enogex, Inc., successor of Mustang Fuel Corp.; AT&T Corp.; Oklahoma Natural Gas Company, division of ONEGas Inc.; Oklahoma and Gulf Railroad Company; Oklahoma County Treasurer; and Board of County Commissioners of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. C. Brent Dishman, Trial Judge. The Oklahoma Turnpike Authority (OTA or condemnor) appeals an award of attorney fees to the condemnees after a trial determining the just compensation for a taking. On review, we find no merit in the OTA’s general allegations that the fee provisions of 27 O.S. § 11 and similar statutes are unconstitutional or are being improperly applied. Although we agree with the OTA that, when determining the total recovery for fee purposes, summing the compensation awarded for the initial taking and the compensation awarded for later tortious damage to untaken property is improper, we find no reversible error, as the correct procedure to use in this situation is clearly prescribed by law but was never requested by the OTA. The award of costs is reduced by $8,203.66, but is otherwise affirmed. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II by BLACKWELL, J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. Aug. 29, 2025
Division III
121,970 – Levinson, Smith & Huffman, P.C., an Oklahoma Professional Corporation, Plaintiff/Appellant/Counter-Appellee, v. Carter Brandy, an individual, Defendant/Appellee/Counter-Appellant, and Trevor Henson, an individual; Slayton Resources, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company; Big Ern Oil, an Oklahoma limited liability company; Global Worldwide Holdings, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company; and Huckleberry Land, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company, Defendants/Appellees, v. Lee I. Levinson, Kenny Joe Smith; William Huffman; John Thetford; and Terence P. Brennan, Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Douglas E. Drummond, Trial Judge. In this commercial litigation, Plaintiff/Appellant/Counter-Appellee, Levinson, Smith & Huffman, PC (Lawfirm), filed this action for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud, and unjust enrichment against Lawfirm’s former employee/attorneys, Defendant/Appellee, Trevor Henson (Henson) and Defendant/Appellee/Counter-Appellant, Carter Bandy (Bandy) and the following corporate Defendants/Appellees formed by Henson and Bandy: Slayton Resources, LLC (Slayton), Big Ern Oil, LLC, Huckleberry Land, LLC, and Global Worldwide Holdings, LLC. Slayton filed a counterclaim against Lawfirm for tortious interference with contractual relations. Henson filed a counterclaim against Lawfirm to have his stock repurchased by Lawfirm. The jury returned a verdict in Lawfirm’s favor against Henson for constructive fraud and a verdict against Bandy for fraud and awarded zero damages. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Henson against Lawfirm for the repurchase of his stock for $100,000.00. The jury found the parties’ evidence failed to support the remainder of the legal claims, counterclaims, and crossclaims. Lawfirm appealed from the verdict in Appellate Case No. 122,012 arguing the district court erred in bifurcating Lawfirm’s claims, in granting judgment to Henson for repurchase of his stock, in denying Lawfirm’s equitable claims, and in failing to award Lawfirm sanctions/attorney fees for having to defend against Slayton’s unsuccessful tortious interference claim. Bandy separately appealed in Appellate Case No. 121,970, arguing the fraud judgment should be reversed because the jury awarded zero damages. These two cases were consolidated with Appellate Case No 121,970 surviving. This Court affirms in part under Oklahoma Supreme Court Rule 1.202, 12 O.S. Ch. 15, App. 1, and affirms the other appealed portions of the district court’s judgment for the reasons discussed herein. Opinion by BELL, C.J.; DOWNING, P.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. Aug. 29, 2025
122,154 – In the Interest of the Child of: Charles Latimer, Petitioner/Appellee, v. Leila Suzanne Alchami, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable April Seibert, Trial Judge. Leila Suzanne Alchami (Mother) appeals the trial court’s Joint Custody Plan, Court’s Order on Child Support Issues, and Order awarding attorney fees. A review of the record shows that no reversible error of law appears, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The trial court’s findings of fact in its various decisions are supported by sufficient evidence and each order appealed adequately explains the decisions made. Therefore, we summarily AFFIRM the trial court’s Joint Custody Plan, Court’s Order on Child Support Issues, and the Order awarding attorney fees PURSUANT TO OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT RULE 1.202(b), (d), AND (e), 12 O.S.2021, Ch. 15, App.1. Opinion by DOWNING, P.J.; BELL, C.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. Aug. 29, 2025
122,181 – Norman Bechtold, d/b/a, Architectural Millwork, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Construction Enterprises, Inc., an Oklahoma corporation, RLI Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation, and City of Tulsa, a municipal corporation, Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Douglas E. Drummond, Trial Judge. Plaintiff/Appellant Norman Bechtold (Bechtold) appeals from a trial court order denying his motion to vacate the court’s prior order that dismissed the action based on Bechtold’s failure to serve any of the Defendants within 200 days of the filing of the lawsuit. See 12 O.S. Supp. 2022 §2004(I). Although this appeal proceeds on Bechtold’s brief only, we find there was no abuse of discretion and the court properly dismissed the case as a matter of law. Accordingly, we AFFIRM. Opinion by MITCHELL, J.; BELL, C.J., and DOWNING, P.J., concur. Aug. 29, 2025
122,225 – Brian Thomas Zanotelli, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Bud Wallace and Rosey Wallace, Defendants/Appellants. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Melissa East, Trial Judge. This is a dispute between pro se litigants over automobile repairs. The plaintiff, Mr. Zanotelli, had his vehicle’s engine overhauled at defendants’ repair shop on Feb. 7, 2024. The work came with a written12-month warranty on parts and labor. On April 29, 2024, Mr. Zanotelli filed a Small Claims Affidavit seeking damages from defendants for breach of the warranty. Zanotelli claimed the auto repairs had not been done correctly resulting in “engine failure” of his vehicle. The small claims trial resulted in a judgment for Mr. Zanotelli in the amount of $4,733.78, the total amount Zanotelli had paid to defendants for the repair work in February. The record contained no transcript of the trial or narrative statement in lieu thereof. Although both sides filed briefs, the only evidence in the record is the Service Invoice from the defendants’ business. The Service Invoice is supportive of the trial court’s judgment. There is a presumption that the trial court’s decision was correct and the proceedings were regular. Appellants totally failed to overcome the presumption of regularity and correctness. They failed to present an appellate record demonstrating reversible error. AFFIRMED. Opinion by MITCHELL, J.; BELL, C.J., and DOWNING, P.J., concur. Aug. 29, 2025
123,213 – Bravo Residential Funding Trust 2022-RPL1, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Andrew W. Angove, Spouse of Andrew W. Angove, Mark T. Hamby, Spouse of Mark T. Hamby, Defendants/Appellants, and Jane Doe, John Doe, Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Daman Cantrell, Trial Judge. Defendant/Appellant, Mark Hamby, appeals from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor Plaintiff/Appellee, Bravo Residential Funding Trust 2022-RPL1, in Bravo’s action to foreclose a residential real estate mortgage. In Exhibit “C” of his Petition in Error, Hamby asserts the following issues to be raised on appeal, in toto: “1) Fraud 2) Breach of Contract.” Generalized allegations of error are typically insufficient to preserve error, unless the summary of the case attached to the petition in error clarifies the issues on appeal. In the present case, Hamby’s summary of the case (Exhibit “B” to his Petition in Error) sheds absolutely no light on his two allegations of error he has raised. Neither the trial court’s order nor Hamby’s case summary mention or discuss any alleged breach of contract or fraud claims. In sum, Hamby’s allegations of error are too vague and general to meaningfully apprise this Court of the reasons for which appellate relief is sought, and his case summary does nothing to clarify those allegations. Hamby has failed to preserve any error for this Court to review. AFFIRMED. Opinion by BELL, C.J.; DOWNING, P.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. Aug. 29, 2025
Division IV