Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals | 2026
Decisions
LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC v. JOHNSTON and MARTIN, et. al
2026 OK CIV APP 15
Case Number: 123086
Decided: 04/22/2026
Mandate Issued: 05/21/2026
AFFIRMED
¶1 On appeal is the district court’s Order Granting Summary Judgment (the “Order”) in favor of Plaintiff/Appellee, Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC (“Lakeview”), on its claims against Stacey Johnston, individually and as personal representative of the estate of Monty Jay Martin (“Appellants”). Finding no genuine issue of material fact existed, the district court found judgment as a matter of law was appropriate on Lakeview’s claims on April 9, 2025, and Appellants now appeal.
¶11 Utilizing this approach, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in considering Lakeview’s summary judgment motion notwithstanding the lack of pinpoint cites. Importantly, we note that the documents in this case are hardly lengthy, nor are they difficult to navigate. The promissory note and mortgage assignment each have only two pages, and the mortgage agreement itself has ten. We were able to identify the location of the pertinent information supporting Lakeview’s statement of facts in relatively short order, and fully believe the district court capable of doing so as well. Our decision may be different had Appellants raised the issue of inability to locate purportedly germane passages in massive exhibits, where the failure to reference the relevant portions placed them at an unfair disadvantage. However, that is not the case here. With the question presented to us in isolation, we do not find that the district court’s consideration of Lakeview’s motion for summary judgment despite its technical non-compliance with the page and line reference requirements of Rule 13(a) to be erroneous.
¶12 AFFIRMED.
RED DIRT INDUSTRIES, LLC v. STATE OF OKLA. ex rel. OMMA
2026 OK CIV APP 14
Case Number: 123004 (cons. w/ 123005)
Decided: 08/01/2025
Mandate Issued: 05/21/2026
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED
¶1 In this consolidated appeal, Appellant, Red Dirt Industries, L.L.C., seeks review of the Grady County District Court’s summary judgment order affirming the Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Authority’s (OMMA) denial of Red Dirt’s application for a commercial grower’s license. The record shows the district court sustained OMMA/Appellee’s motion for summary judgment, due to the fact Red Dirt was not in compliance with the residency ownership requirements of 63 O.S. Supp.2021 §422(B)(4).
¶2 The issues presented for review in this appeal are whether the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibits Oklahoma from placing residency limits on entities applying for a license to grow marijuana, and what is the proper procedure for reviewing an agency decision denying such a license. This court holds that Oklahoma is not prohibited from limiting interstate commerce with respect to medical marijuana licensing. This is a market Congress has determined to be illegal. Upon remand, the district court is instructed to review the agency record submitted to the district court and the corresponding decision denying Red Dirt’s application according to the applicable standard of review.
REGIER, REGIER v. THE CITY OF ENID and GARNEY COMPANIES, INC.
2026 OK CIV APP 13
Case Number: 122914
Decided: 04/14/2026
Mandate Issued: 05/14/2026
¶1 Ronald Edward Regier and Sandra Regier (Plaintiffs) appeal a February 4, 2025, Order granting summary judgment to the City of Enid (City) on Plaintiffs’ claims arising from construction of and/or use of various utility and water line easements across Plaintiffs’ property. Plaintiffs sought to terminate or modify these easements and asserted tort claims for negligence, nuisance and conversion. City moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction due to failure to give notice under the Governmental Tort Claims Act (GTCA), 51 O.S.2021, § 151 et seq., and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. At Plaintiffs’ request, the trial court treated City’s Motion as a motion for summary judgment and directed Plaintiffs to respond with evidentiary materials. The Court deemed the Motion confessed after Plaintiffs failed to do so.
¶2 The appeal was assigned to the accelerated docket pursuant to Oklahoma Supreme Court Rule 1.36, 12 O.S. 2021, ch.15, app.1, without further briefing. On review of the record presented, we find that Plaintiffs complied with the GTCA, and that Defendants failed to meet their burden on the record presented that Plaintiffs’ claims were time-barred or that they are otherwise entitled to summary judgment on those claims. We reverse the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in its entirety, and remand for further proceedings.
DUGGAN v. DUGGAN
2026 OK CIV APP 12
Case Number: 122919
Decided: 05/07/2026
Mandate Issued: 05/07/2026
¶1 Appellant, Jake Duggan (Father), appeals from the trial court’s February 5, 2025, Findings on Motions to Modify (Order), modifying Father’s and Mallory Duggan’s (Mother), joint custody plan. The trial court’s order made best interest of the child findings but lacked a specific determination as to whether equal access to the child by Father would be detrimental as required by 43 O.S.2021, § 110.1. We reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
CLARK, et. al v. MCGREGOR HOMES, LLC, et al.
2026 OK CIV APP 10
Case Number: 121850
Decided: 04/30/2026
Mandate Issued: 04/30/2026
Plaintiffs/Appellants are current or former homeowners of Lots 25-28 of Block One (1), Section One (1), Cottage Grove Addition in Edmond, Oklahoma. 1 They appeal from the district court’s refusal to enter a mandatory injunction requiring Defendants/Appellees Cottage Grove, LLC (Developer) and McGregor Homes, LLC (Builder) to relocate certain sewer lines traversing the subsurface of their Lots. Because our review of the circumstances of this case leads us to conclude the district court’s refusal to issue the mandatory injunction was not against the clear weight of the evidence, we affirm the December 11, 2023 judgment of the district court.
Homeowners also appeal the district court’s award of attorney fees and costs to Developer and Builder through a separately filed Amended Petition in Error. Homeowners’ filing preserves one issue: the June 28, 2024 Journal Entry awarding fees and costs fails to comply with Fleig v. Landmark Construction Group, 2024 OK 25, 549 P.3d 1208. The Journal Entry’s award is affirmed insofar as it establishes Developer and Builder’s entitlement to fees and costs. Developer and Builder prevailed on their motion for summary judgment as to Homeowners’ trespass and nuisance claims, entitling Developer and Builder to attorney fees pursuant to 12 O.S.2021 § 940. Homeowners did not appeal that judgment. However, that part of the order determining the amount of fees is vacated, and this matter is remanded to the district court for entry of an order complying with the holding in Fleig.
Lastly, Developer and Builder request appeal-related attorney fees pursuant to Okla. Sup. Ct. R. 1.14(b). 2 Because Developer and Builder are entitled to attorney fees in the district court, that request is granted. Upon remand, the district court shall determine the amount of appeal-related attorney fees to be awarded.
…
The district court’s conclusion to deny mandatory injunctive relief requiring Developer and/or Builder to relocate the Lines is not against the clear weight of the evidence, and we therefore affirm the December 11, 2023 decision of the district court.
We further affirm that part of the June 28, 2024 Journal Entry awarding fees and costs to Developer and Builder insofar as it establishes Developer and Builder’s entitlement to fees and costs. That portion of the Journal Entry determining the amount of the award is vacated and remanded for entry of an order complying with the holding in Fleig. The matter is further remanded for the district court’s determination of an amount to be awarded for appeal-related attorney fees.
WILLIAMS v. MCFEETERS and THE DAVEY TREE EXPERT CO.
2026 OK CIV APP 9
Case Number: 122699
Decided: 01/29/2026
Mandate Issued: 03/19/2026
¶1 Lois Williams appeals the court’s grant of the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Upon review, we find that Williams timely filed her negligence claim against the defendants, and the court thus erred in granting the motion to dismiss. 1
¶2 On May 21, 2019, Williams and McFeeters were involved in a car accident. On July 19, 2021–two years and fifty-nine days later–Williams filed a petition against the defendants alleging that McFeeters was negligent and that she suffered personal injuries for which McFeeters and his employer were responsible. 2 On August 8, 2023, Williams voluntarily dismissed her case without prejudice. Within one year, Williams refiled the action pursuant to 12 O.S. § 100.
…
¶10 Based on the Court’s analysis in McBee, we hold that the period of March 16, 2020, through May 15, 2020–a period of sixty-one days–cannot count against a party when calculating the applicable statute of limitations under Oklahoma law. 4 As such, the order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss is reversed, and this matter is remanded for additional proceedings.
BRIAN HAMLIN v. EDWARD HENRY YOB, et al.
2026 OK CIV APP 8
Case Number: 122378
Decided: 02/06/2026
Mandate Issued: 03/12/2026
¶1 Appellant, Brian Hamlin (Hamlin) appeals the May 6, 2024 Journal Entry of Judgment entered in favor of Appellees, Addicted Outdoors, LLC (Addicted), Steven Yob (Yob), and The Mary O’Reilly Yob Revocable Trust (Trust). After a review of the entire record and pertinent law, we reverse the punitive damages amount awarded to Addicted and remand to the trial court with instruction for the statutory cap, but affirm on all other issues before us.
CHANTZ CANDLER, et al. v. JOHN JAMES
2026 OK CIV APP 7
Case Number: 123333
Decided: 02/11/2026
Mandate Issued: 03/12/2026
¶1 John James (“James”) appeals the district court’s July 9, 2025, Order denying his Motion to Dismiss under the Oklahoma Citizens Participation Act (“OCPA”). Chantz Candler, Chase Candler, James Benjamin Kimmel, Michelle Kimmel, Mike Jones, Patrick Smith, Linda Smith, James William Wells, Kevin Brown, and Jim Clements (collectively, “Lessees”) brought suit for defamation, after James made assertions that Lessees had not been paying rent and insurance on their aircraft hangar space in a news article and on social media. In his Motion, James asserted that Lessees could not establish by clear and specific evidence a prima facie case of defamation. The district court found that Lessees met this burden and that facts were still in dispute requiring the case to proceed for a final resolution. Based on our review of the briefs and appellate record, we affirm the district court’s Order.
In the Matter of S.J.
2026 OK CIV APP 6
Case Number: 122814
Decided: 02/05/2026
Mandate Issued: 03/05/2026
¶1 This case arises from the adoption proceedings of minor child S.J. (“Child”), whose adoption by Appellees Ray and Darci Stout (“Adoptive Parents”) was finalized by the District Court of Cherokee County on May 2, 2024. On July 30, 2024, Appellant Jane Acuna-Garza (“Appellant”), the Child’s biological grandmother, filed a Motion to Intervene in the adoption proceedings for the stated purpose of seeking to vacate the Child’s finalized adoption. The trial court denied Appellant’s motion on the grounds that the Oklahoma Adoption Code, 75 O.S. §§7501-1.1 et seq., did not allow for intervention of interested parties after the entry of a final adoption decree, and Appellant appealed. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the district court’s denial.
PARKER, et al., v. VALLIANCE BANK
2026 OK CIV APP 5
Case Number: 121526
Decided: 01/30/2026
Mandate Issued: 02/26/2026
¶1 Appellants Phillip R. Parker, the Phillip R. Parker Revocable Trust, Ki Lynn Parker, the Ki Lynn Parker Revocable Trust, Phillip R. Parker, DDS, MS, MS, P.C.; and OLD WELL, LCC (the Parkers unless otherwise stated) appeal the judgment in favor of Valliance Bank. This case arises out of the Bank’s disclosure of its customer, Greenway Park, LLC’s, financial records pursuant to a subpoena issued in a separate case. The Parkers are related in various ways to Greenway Park and maintain that the Bank’s production of Greenway Park’s financial records was negligent, violated their rights guaranteed by the Oklahoma Financial Privacy Act, 6 O.S.2021 §§ 2201-2208, and breached a fiduciary duty that the Bank owed to them. The Parkers were customers of the Bank, but they were not the “customer” whose records were subpoenaed. Although we find that the Bank’s production of records in the absence of a certificate that the requesting party had complied with the Financial Privacy Act violated a provision of the Act, we affirm the judgment in favor of the Bank.
IN THE MATTER OF J.S., JR.
2026 OK CIV APP 4
Case Number: 123281
Decided: 01/23/2026
Mandate Issued: 02/19/2026
¶1 In this deprived child proceeding, Appellant, Asheley Teague, the biological mother of J.S., JR. (JSJ), the minor child, appeals from the district court’s order terminating her parental rights. The State of Oklahoma (State) moved to terminate Mother’s parental rights, Mother waived a jury trial, and then Mother failed to appear at two subsequent scheduled hearings which were noticed by announcements memorialized in minute orders. The court minute order dated May 30, 2025, stated Mother failed to appear, but quantified “default under advisement pending best interest.” Mother appeared at the best interest trial set on June 2, 2025. State’s witness was sworn and examined and testified as to the child’s best interest. After the best interest trial, the district court found reasonable efforts were made, Mother failed to make the corrections and termination was in the child’s best interest. On appeal, Mother claims the district court erred in terminating her parental rights because the notices of May 30, 2025, hearing, i.e. the non-jury trial date, and June 2, 2025, best interest hearing were legally insufficient under 10A O.S. 2021 §1-4-905. Mother also asserts the district court erred in finding termination was in the minor child’s best interest. This Court holds the petition to terminate provided Mother with the notice required in §1-4-905(A)(1) and (2) and Mother was properly provided notice of subsequent hearings. This Court also holds State met its burden of showing it was in the child’s best interest to terminate Mother’s parental rights. The order terminating Mother’s parental rights is affirmed.
VERTICAL EXPLORATION, et al. v. AMERICO OIL and CORPORATION COMMISSION
2026 OK CIV APP 3
Case Number: 122360
Decided: 08/18/2026
Mandate Issued: 02/19/2026
¶1 Appellants, Vertical Exploration, LLC, and VE Holdco, LLC, appeal from an order of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission dismissing their application to terminate or modify a previously issued unitization order. The Commission held that Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC) 165:5-7-20(C) only allows a plan of unitization to be amended or terminated by application to the Commission if the plan does not provide for amendment or termination. Because the unitization plan at issue contains such a provision, the Commission held it was powerless to amend or terminate its prior unitization order. For the reasons set forth below, we hold the Commission retains authority over its previously issued unitization order notwithstanding the presence of an amendment/termination provision in the unitization plan. Accordingly, we reverse the Commission’s order of dismissal and remand this matter for further proceedings.
POPULAR CONSTRUCTION v. SCISSOR-TAIL CONSTRUCTION, et al.
2026 OK CIV APP 2
Case Number: 122843
Decided: 08/18/2025
Mandate Issued: 02/12/2026
¶1 Plaintiff/Appellant Popular Construction, LLC (“Popular”) filed a mechanic’s or materialmen’s lien in May 2019. Defendant/Appellee Scissor-Tail Construction, LLC (“Scissor-Tail”) discharged the lien by posting a surety bond guaranteed by Defendant/Appellee Mid-Continent Casualty Company (“Mid-Continent”). Popular sued Scissor-Tail on the underlying debt, but its initial petition did not name Mid-Continent as a party or seek to foreclose the bond. When Popular sought leave to amend its petition, Scissor-Tail and Mid-Continent argued a foreclosure claim was time-barred as a matter of law because Popular’s motion for leave to amend was filed more than a year after the lien’s filing. Popular, on the other hand, contended the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s emergency administrative orders, which were entered during the pendency of this case as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, tolled all rules, procedures, and deadlines from March 16, 2020 through May 15, 2020, rendering its motion timely. The trial court initially agreed with Popular and granted its motion for leave to amend. It later, however, reconsidered and vacated its prior ruling. According to the court, 42 O.S. §§172 and 177 are statutes of repose; the Supreme Court’s emergency orders did not toll statutes of repose; and, as a result, both the lien and the lien discharge bond expired as a matter of law prior to Popular’s motion for leave to amend. We reverse and remand.
STEIDLEY, et al. v. SINGER, et al.
2026 OK CIV APP 1
Case Number: 121773
Decided: 06/25/2025
Mandate Issued: 01/15/2026
¶1 After a six-day trial, a jury returned favorable defamation verdicts for Plaintiffs/Appellees Janice Steidley and David Iski and found they were damaged in the respective amounts of $250,000 and $150,000. Defendant/Appellant John Singer (Singer) appeals from the trial court’s Journal Entry of Judgment reflecting the verdicts, as well as the Order denying his post-trial motions. Singer claims the court erred by denying his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the allegedly defamatory publications in this case were privileged and/or were made without malice, and the jury’s verdict therefore infringes on his First Amendment rights to free speech. Singer also contends he should have received a new trial because the court improperly instructed the jury about Iski’s burden of proof; because there was an erroneous evidentiary ruling; and because the jury’s verdicts were inconsistent. Finally, he alleges there are errors in the Journal Entry of Judgment that require correction. We agree the court erred by awarding Steidley and Iski prejudgment interest; post judgment interest was recalculated based on the erroneous inclusion of prejudgment interest. We otherwise identify no errors of law or abuses of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and modify in part.