Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals | 2025
Decisions
THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. PANTER v. MCVEA
2025 OK CIV APP 13
Case Number: 121868
Decided: 04/11/2025
Mandate Issued: 05/09/2025
¶1 Sherral McVea1, in her capacity as personal representative of the estate of Larry McVey, appeals the district court’s denial of her motion to vacate a default judgment of forfeiture against the property of the late Larry McVey. On review we find that a personal representative was the only proper party to receive notice and an opportunity to raise claims and defenses that the deceased could have raised. No personal representative had been appointed at the time of notice, and the state did not use the 12 O.S. § 2025 procedure to substitute a personal representative for the deceased. As such, we reverse the decision of the district court and remand for additional proceedings consistent with this opinion.
HADDAN ET AL. v. THE COVES MASTER ASSOCIATION, INC. ET AL.
2025 OK CIV APP 12
Case Number: 121663
Decided: 03/28/2025
Mandate Issued: 04/24/2025
¶1 Three members of the Coves Master Association, Inc. appeal the dismissal of their petition in this derivative litigation. 1 Prior to filing this case, the Plaintiffs were required to and did make demand on the Association’s Board of Directors to file the litigation they wanted the Board to pursue. However, their demand was inadequate in many respects and their Petition included more claims than listed in their demand. In addition, the Plaintiffs’ Petition fails to state a direct claim against the Association’s directors. Finally, although the Plaintiffs have sued various directors of the Association, the Plaintiffs propose through this litigation to overturn decisions by a majority of the Association’s members rather than actions by the Board of Directors. For these reasons, the Plaintiffs’ Petition was properly dismissed. However, on remand, the Plaintiffs shall be granted leave to file an amended petition consistent with this Opinion if they properly renew their request to do so with the district court.
OAKES v CITY OF STILLWATER and THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
2025 OK CIV APP 11
Case Number: 121948
Decided: 09/18/2024
Mandate Issued: 04/17/2025
DEBORAH B. BARNES, CHIEF JUDGE:
¶1 Travis Lee Oakes (Claimant) seeks review of an order of the Oklahoma Workers’ Compensation Commission. The Commission reversed an order of an administrative law judge (ALJ) on the issue of temporary total disability (TTD) benefits. The Commission found the ALJ erred in denying the City of Stillwater’s motion to terminate TTD benefits. The Commission found that because Claimant — who had previously resigned his employment with the City in order to work for a different employer out of state — was released to light duty work, 1 the City did not have a legal obligation to offer Claimant light duty work, and the concomitant reestablishment of an employer-employee relationship, prior to terminating TTD benefits. The Commission otherwise affirmed the rulings of the ALJ. Based on our review, we sustain the Commission’s order.
PARSON v. FARLEY et al.
2025 OK CIV APP 10
Case Number: 122308
Decided: 03/12/2025
Mandate Issued: 04/17/2025
THOMAS E. PRINCE, JUDGE:
¶1 Defendant/Appellant, Cimarron Properties, Inc. (“Cimarron”) appeals an Order on Plaintiff’s Garnishment. Plaintiff/Appellee, Carl Parson, issued a garnishment to Cimarron in an attempt to satisfy judgments owed to him and to the estate of Hubert Leon Farley. Cimarron objected to the garnishment and a hearing was subsequently held approximately three years later at which time the trial court ordered Cimarron to comply and make monthly payments to Mr. Parson pursuant to the terms of a promissory note. After a review of the law, the record, and the Parties’ briefs, we find that the Order of the trial court should be REVERSED. It was error for the trial court to enter a continuing general garnishment and it was error for the trial court to find that Cimarron should have been on notice that there was a fraudulent assignment of the promissory note.
STEPHENS vs STATE OF OKLAHOMA EX REL STATE BD OF OSTEOPATHIC EXAMINERS
2025 OK CIV APP 9
Case Number: 121740
Decided: 03/03/2025
Mandate Issued: 03/27/2025
GREGORY C. BLACKWELL, JUDGE:
¶1 Dr. Linh Stephens appeals the trial court’s decision affirming the Oklahoma Board of Osteopathic Examiners’ order of public reprimand issued to Dr. Stephens for violation of the Oklahoma Osteopathic Medicine Act, 59 O.S. § 620 et seq. Upon review, we reverse, holding that, on this record, Dr. Stephens could not have been reprimanded because she did not violate the portion of the act for which she was cited.
ROCKET PROPERTIES LLC vs THE CITY OF TULSA
2025 OK CIV APP 8
Case Number: 121092
Decided: 12/20/2024
Mandate Issued: 03/27/2025
¶1 Defendant, City of Tulsa [City] appeals a jury verdict of $1,895,000.00 in this inverse condemnation case on the grounds Plaintiff, Rocket Properties, LLC [Rocket], failed to exhaust its administrative remedies, and thus, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Further, Rocket counter-appeals the trial court’s rulings of its award to Rocket of prejudgment and post-judgment interest.
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF McKINNEY
2025 OK CIV APP 7
Case Number: 121097
Decided: 08/28/2024
Mandate Issued: 03/06/2025
¶1 Lawrence J. Warfield, as bankruptcy trustee for Pamela McKinney, appeals an order of the district court approving the final account for the estate of Pamela’s father, John Eddie McKinney. The final account invoked a no contest clause in the testator’s last will and testament that disinherited Pamela. Upon review, we affirm the order of the district court, holding that the trial court properly enforced the no contest clause.
TRANSOURCE OKLAHOMA v. AHRBERG FAMILY TRUST
2025 OK CIV APP 6
Case Number: 120537; Cons. w/120538
Decided: 01/25/2024
Mandate Issued: 03/06/2025
¶1 The predominant issue before the court is application of 27 O.S. §7(A) which extends the right of eminent domain to entities that “furnish” electrical power. Transource Oklahoma, LLC, constructs electrical transmission lines and argues it is engaged in furnishing electricity within the meaning of §7(A). Landowners contend Transource does not furnish electrical power but merely transmits it, a distinction they say the Legislature has acknowledged. Section 7(A) provides:
Except as otherwise provided in this section, any person, firm or corporation organized under the laws of this state, or authorized to do business in this state, to furnish light, heat or power by electricity or gas, or any other person, association or firm engaged in furnishing lights, heat or power by electricity or gas shall have and exercise the right of eminent domain in the same manner and by like proceedings as provided for railroad corporations by laws of this state. (emphasis added).
The district court found Transource is endowed with the right of eminent domain because it provides electricity, and we review that interpretation de novo. Cole v. Josey, 2019 OK 39, ¶3, 457 P.3d 1007, 1009. It is a question of first impression.
OKLAHOMA TURNPIKE AUTHORITY v. VOREL
2025 OK CIV APP 5
Case Number: 120066
Decided: 07/22/2024
Mandate Issued: 03/06/2025
¶1 The Oklahoma Turnpike Authority appeals a judgment in favor of the Peggy Lu Vorel Revocable Trust dated February 18, 2016, entered on a jury verdict in this condemnation case. The dispositive issue is whether the district court correctly construed the allegations in the Authority’s petition regarding the scope of the Trust’s property taken by the Authority. The district court determined that the description of the property taken included all access from a portion of the Trust’s property rather than just access to the limited access turnpike being constructed across the Trust’s property. This was error. The judgment is vacated, and this case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. 1
KIRTLEY V. KIRTLEY
2025 OK CIV APP 4
Case Number: 121723
Decided: 01/31/2025
Mandate Issued: 02/28/2025
¶1 In this action for breach of an oral agreement, fraud/misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, accounting, and removal of trustee, Plaintiffs/Appellees/Counter-Appellants, Jody Rae Kirtley, Personal Representative of the Estate of J. Ross Kirtley, deceased; Debra J. Kirtley, an individual; and Cara Coy, Personal Representative of the Estate of Sheryl J. Coy, deceased, sued Defendant/Appellant/Counter-Appellee, Patsy Kirtley, individually and as Successor Trustee of the Wendell J. Kirtley Revocable Trust dated May 30, 2006, as Amended; as Trustee of the Patsy Ruth Kirtley Revocable Trust dated May 30, 2006, as Amended, and the Patsy Kirtley 2016 Trust dated June 2, 2016, as Restated. Patsy and Wendell were married until Wendell’s death August 5, 2015. They had no children together. At Wendell’s death, he had three living adult children. All three of Wendell’s children were the original Plaintiffs. Two of Wendell’s children died during this proceeding. Patsy has one adult child who is not a party to this action. In 2015, Patsy and Wendell amended their revocable trusts to equally benefit their respective adult children upon both settlors’ deaths. After Wendell’s death, Patsy partially distributed Wendell’s trust assets to herself and the children. In 2016, Patsy revoked her amended trust and disinherited Plaintiffs. Patsy’s 2016 trust gifted her trust property to her son and granddaughter. Plaintiffs learned about the revocation and filed a petition which sought to enforce an alleged oral agreement between Patsy and Wendell made before the execution of the 2015 trust amendments. Plaintiffs claimed Patsy orally agreed not to change her trust after Wendell’s death and to direct her trustee, at her death, to give an equal share of the Kirtley property to each of the couple’s children. After a bench trial, the trial court held Wendell gifted valuable income producing property to Patsy; the oral agreement was unenforceable under the statute of frauds; Plaintiffs did not clearly and convincing establish an exception to the statute of frauds or the elements of fraud; and Plaintiffs failed to establish Patsy breached her fiduciary duty as trustee of Wendell’s trust. The court found the terms of the trusts remained in full force and effect and denied the remainder of Plaintiffs’ causes of actions and Patsy’s counterclaims. Patsy applied for attorney fees pursuant to 60 O.S. 2021 §175.57 and enforcement of the no-contest clause in Wendell’s trust. The trial court denied both of Patsy’s applications and Patsy appealed from these orders. Plaintiffs counter-appealed from the trial court’s judgment in favor of Patsy on Plaintiffs’ causes of action. After reviewing the record, we cannot find the trial court abused its discretion, held contrary to the weight of the evidence, or held contrary to law when it denied Patsy’s applications and granted judgment in favor of Patsy on all of Plaintiffs’ claims. The trial court’s orders and judgment are affirmed.
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF WALTERS
2025 OK CIV APP 3
Case Number: 120023
Decided: 12/11/2024
Mandate Issued: 02/06/2025
¶1 Mary Kathryn (“Mary Kate”) Walters married Ryan Walters in 2006 and filed for divorce in 2019. At trial, Mary Kate sought sole custody, authorization to permanently relocate out-of-state, child support, support alimony, and valuation of certain jointly owned assets. The district court granted Mary Kate each of these requests and found Ryan committed “domestic abuse” during the marriage. Ryan appeals these rulings. The court also granted, in part, Mary Kate’s request for attorney fees. Ryan appeals from the attorney fee award, primarily arguing that it was erroneous to the extent it was based on a finding of domestic abuse. Mary Kate counter-appeals the attorney fee award, arguing that the court erred in significantly reducing the award. We vacate the provision related to Ryan’s maintenance of life insurance to secure unpaid child support and support alimony and remand for the entry of a new provision consistent with existing precedent. As to the award of attorney fees and costs, we deny Ryan’s appeal, but vacate the order pursuant to Mary Kate’s appeal, and remand the case for the entry of a new award. In all other respects, the Decree of Dissolution of Marriage is affirmed.
IN THE MATTER OF: H.M.A.
2025 OK CIV APP 2
Case Number: 121224
Decided: 05/15/2024
Mandate Issued: 01/09/2025
¶1 Harold Allen (“Father”) appeals the trial court’s March 15, 2023 order terminating his parental rights to H.M.A. and J.H.A.1 He argues the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter the order under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA” or “the Act”), located at 43 O.S.2021, §§ 551-101 through 551-402. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we find the record fails to show the court had jurisdiction to enter the order. We reverse the order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion without addressing the other issues Father raises on appeal.
BANK OF AMERICA v. STILL
2025 OK CIV APP 1
Case Number: 121129
Decided: 05/16/2024
Mandate Issued: 01/09/2025
¶1 The predominant issue before this court is whether it was error for the trial court to certify a class action that included non-resident class members contrary to 12 O.S. §2023(D)(3). We hold it was and reverse.
¶2 Bank of America, N.A. commenced this action to foreclose its mortgage against Linsey Still (Plaintiff).1 In her Third-Party Petition, Plaintiff sued her loan servicer, Selene Finance, LP, (Defendant) alleging it improperly charged inspection fees while she was in default even after it determined she was occupying her home. She moved the court to appoint her as representative of a class of borrowers in thirteen states who were charged the same type of fees by Defendant. The trial court certified the class and Defendant urges this was error because 12 O.S. §2023(D)(3) requires that class membership be limited to Oklahoma residents. Plaintiff contends Defendant waived operation of the statute or is estopped from relying on it.