Supreme Court of Oklahoma | 2023

December 19, 2023

Decisions

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF GEORGES
2023 OK 123
Case Number: 120989
Decided: 12/19/2023

¶1 James Felts, Appellant, filed a petition to vacate the final decree in a probate case and sought to intervene in the estate of Basil Georges, Decedent, on the theory that he was a pretermitted heir. In response to Appellant’s petition, Poppi Eleni Georges Massey, Suzanne Vinson Georges Lopez, George L. Sartain, Jr., the heirs of Basil Georges, Poppi and Suzanne 1999 Oil Properties L.P., and the Poppi & Suzanne Oil Properties LLC, collectively Respondents or Appellees, filed a motion to dismiss alleging that Appellant lacked standing to intervene. The district court found that Appellant already had a presumed father, who was not Decedent, and that Appellant failed to make a showing that he had standing to intervene in Decedent’s probate when Decedent had not been adjudicated his father. The district court granted Appellees’ motion to dismiss. The question presented is whether the district court correctly dismissed Appellant’s petition to vacate and intervene. We answer the question in the affirmative.

IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF A.J.B.
2023 OK 122
Case Number: 120431
Decided: 12/19/2023

¶0 This is an action by the mother of a child born out of wedlock and her husband to adopt the child without the consent of the natural father. The trial court denied the adoption without consent holding the petitioners’ evidence was insufficient. The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals vacated the judgment but agreed with the trial court that there was no clear and convincing evidence father willfully failed to support the child. The matter was remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the father’s defenses to allegations he failed to maintain a relationship with the child. The father petitioned this Court for certiorari which was previously granted.

FRANK BARTEL TRANSPORTATION v. STATE ex rel. MURRAY STATE COLLEGE
2023 OK 121
Case Number: 121252
Decided: 12/19/2023

¶0 Petitioner Frank Bartel Transportation, Inc., petitioned for writ of certiorari from an order granting partial summary judgment, which presented a claim of first impression under the Governmental Tort Claims Act. We granted the petition for writ of certiorari, reverse the trial court’s decision, and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.

AMOORPOUR v. KIRKHAM
2023 OK 120
Case Number: 120181
Decided: 12/19/2023

¶0 Appellees brought a claim against a neighboring landowner to quiet title. The neighboring landowner counterclaimed, alleging adverse possession. After a bench trial, the district court quieted title to Appellees. Appellees then moved for money damages for the rental value of the property and sought a writ of assistance. The district court denied Appellees’ requests for relief. The neighboring landowner appealed, and Appellees counter-appealed. The Court retained this case. We affirm the district court’s ruling to quiet title to Appellees, holding the neighboring landowner failed to prove adverse possession, and we affirm the district court’s denial of Appellees’ request for money damages. We reverse the district court’s denial of Appellees’ request for a writ of assistance.

IN RE: RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THER STATE OF OKLAHOMA ON LICENSED LEGAL INTERNSHIP
2023 OK 119
Case Number: 7589
Decided: 12/11/2023

ORDER

This matter comes on before this Court upon an Application to Amend Rule 6.1 and Interpretation 2022-1 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma on Licensed Legal Internship (hereinafter “Rules”) filed on November 30, 2023. This Court finds that it has jurisdiction over this matter and Rule 6.1 and Interpretation 2022-1 is hereby amended as set out in Exhibits A and B attached hereto, effective immediately.

UNDERWOOD v. STATE BD. OF EXAMINERS OF CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
2023 OK 118
Case Number: 121667
Decided: 12/12/2023

¶0 Petitioner Virginia Underwood filed a complaint against Certified Shorthand Reporter Joseph Shewmaker with the State Board of Examiners of Certified Shorthand Reporters (the Board). The Board reviewed the complaint and determined formal disciplinary proceedings were not warranted. Underwood has appealed the Board’s decision. We affirm the Board’s decision and dismiss this cause.

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF LANDING
2023 OK 117
Case Number: 120759
Decided: 12/12/2023

¶0 Appellant sought to remove the current administrator of her father’s estate, claiming that under 58 O.S. § 135, she has superior right to the role and the court had no discretion to refuse her request. The District Court of Tulsa County, the Honorable Kelly Greenough, disagreed and denied Appellant’s request. We hold that the trial court had discretion in the matter and did not abuse that discretion when it denied Appellant’s motion.

CANTWELL v. FLEX-N-GATE
2023 OK 116
Case Number: 120189; Comp w/ 120458, 120460
Decided: 12/12/2023

¶0 This appeal concerns the Workers’ Compensation Commission’s interpretation of 85A O.S. Supp. 2013, § 46(H). The Claimant was awarded permanent partial disability in three work related claims, but denied payment pursuant to the Commission’s interpretation of Section 46(H). The Commission interpreted Section 46(H) to limit permanent partial disability benefits to 350 weeks, even though the claimant had not yet reached 100% impairment to any body part or the body as a whole. We retained the case for disposition and hold that the 100% limitation on PPD benefits, codified at 85A O.S. Supp. 2013, § 45(C)(1), controls over the number of weeks when awarding compensation for PPD where a claimant has compensable awards for job related injuries that occurred before and after February 1, 2014. We vacate the Commission’s order in each case, and remand the cases for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. ELSEY
2023 OK 115
Case Number: SCBD-7582
Decided: 12/04/2023

¶1 Before this Court is (1) the affidavit of Respondent Jackie Dale Elsey filed pursuant to Rule 8.1 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), 5 O.S.2021, ch. 1, app. 1-A, requesting that this Court allow him to resign his membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA) and relinquish his right to practice law, and (2) the OBA’s Application for Order Approving Resignation Pending Disciplinary Proceedings.

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. JACKSON
2023 OK 114
Case Number: SCBD-7581
Decided: 11/20/2023

¶1 The Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA), pursuant to Rules 7.1 and 7.2 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), forwarded to this Court certified copies of a Corrected Verified Emergency Application for Citation for Indirect Contempt of Court, Jury Instructions, and Judgment and Order of Confinement for Civil Indirect Contempt in the matter of Myers v. Myers, CJ-2015-120 and Kemp v. Peterson, CJ-2019-6289, in Oklahoma County District Court. On October 26, 2023, a jury found Respondent Guy Wade Jackson guilty of indirect contempt. The court sentenced Respondent to six (6) months confinement in the Oklahoma County Detention Center and a $500 fine. Respondent is currently incarcerated.

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. KALKA
2023 OK 113
Case Number: SCBD-7576
Decided: 11/20/2023

¶1 The Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA), in compliance with Rules 7.1 and 7.2 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), has forwarded to this Court certified copies of the Probable Cause Affidavit, Information, Plea of Guilty/Summary of Facts, and Judgment and Sentence, in the criminal matter of State of Oklahoma v. Joseph Dewayne Kalka, Case No. CF-2022-265, in the District Court of Lincoln County. On October 24, 2023, Respondent Joseph Dewayne Kalka entered a plea of guilty to Count 1: Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation, a felony, in violation of 21 O.S., § 644(J), and Count 2: Domestic Abuse – Assault and Battery, a misdemeanor, in violation of 21 O.S., 644(C). The Court sentenced Respondent to a 3-year term of imprisonment for Count 1 and a 1-year term of imprisonment for Count 2, with execution of the sentence suspended, and fines in the amount of $200.

SCOTT v. FOSTER
2023 OK 112
Case Number: 118267
Decided: 11/14/2023

¶0 Petitioner, Derrick R. Scott, filed a petition to establish paternity. Respondent, Mother, Candice J. Foster filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that title 10, section 7700-609(B) requires a party to commence an adjudication of paternity within two years of an acknowledgment of paternity. The Blaine County District Court granted Mother’s motion to dismiss and ordered Petitioner to pay substantial attorney fees. Petitioner appealed and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, overturning the district court’s order regarding attorney fees. This Court previously granted certiorari to address whether the Court of Civil Appeals properly affirmed the district court in dismissing Petitioner’s claim. We answer now in the negative.

OKLAHOMA CALL FOR REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE v. DRUMMOND
2023 OK 111
Case Number: 119918
Decided: 11/14/2023

¶0 The appellants filed an action to permanently enjoin enforcement of five Acts of the Oklahoma Legislature. Each Act concerns the termination of a pregnancy. The appellants’ challenges are based upon Oklahoma law and not federal law. They assert there is a constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy under the Oklahoma Constitution. The trial court denied a temporary injunction on three of the Acts, which is the basis of this appeal. We retained this appeal and granted a temporary injunction pending appeal. We now vacate the trial court’s order denying temporary injunction, direct it to grant a temporary injunction and remand the matter for further proceedings on the merits.

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. LOCKARD
2023 OK 110
Case Number: SCBD-7505
Decided: 11/14/2023

¶0 On March 31, 2023, James Harry Lockard, a licensed Oklahoma lawyer, entered a no contest plea to two misdemeanor counts: 1) Domestic Assault and Battery and 2) Public Intoxication in Cleveland County, Oklahoma District Court, Case No. CF-2023-111. On August 1, 2023, this Court entered an order of Interim Suspension under Rule 7 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings. The matter is before the Court to impose a final order of discipline.

RIVENBURG v. CILIBERTI
2023 OK 109
Case Number: 120042
Decided: 11/14/2023

¶0 The District Court of Garfield County, the Honorable Tom L. Newby, Associate Judge, ordered the admission to probate of a will executed in 2018 by Velda Mae Rivenburg, after denying challenges to the will brought by the testator’s son. Son appealed. The Court of Civil Appeals, Division I, affirmed. Son sought certiorari review.

CATHEY v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR MCCURTAIN COUNTY
2023 OK 108
Case Number: 121465
Decided: 11/14/2023

IN RE AMENDMENTS TO RULE 3, 4 AND 21 OF RULES OF STATE BD. OF EXAMINERS OF CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
2023 OK 107
Decided: 11/13/2023

Rule 3, Rule 4, and Rule 21 of the Rules of the State Board of Examiners of Certified Shorthand Reporters, Title 20, Chapter 20, Appendix 1, are hereby amended as shown on the attached Exhibit “A.” The amended rules shall be effective immediately.

IN RE AMENDMENTS TO RULE 5 AND 8 OF DISCIPLINARY RULES OF STATE BD. OF EXAMINERS OF CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
2023 OK 106
Decided: 11/13/2023

ORDER

Rule 5 and Rule 8 of the Disciplinary Rules of the State Board of Examiners of Certified Shorthand Reporters, Title 20, Chapter 20, Appendix 2, are hereby amended as shown on the attached Exhibit “A.” The amended rules shall be effective immediately.

DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE THIS 13^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023.

/S/CHIEF JUSTICE

ALL JUSTICES CONCUR.

ACCIDENT CARE AND TREATMENT CENTER v. CSAA GENERAL INSURANCE CO.
2023 OK 105
Case Number: 119644
Decided: 11/07/2023

¶0 Medical providers sued insurance company to enforce their perfected medical liens for professional services rendered to a person injured in a car accident. Insurance company disputed the (1) reasonableness of the charges, and (2) necessity of the services. Medical providers argued that the insurance company had no legal standing to dispute these issues, absent an assignment from the injured party. Although Insurance company prepared the “Release” with the injured person, it failed to include such an assignment. Insurance company argued that in spite of this omission, there was an “implied” assignment from the injured party as evidenced by precontract settlement discussions. The trial court ruled that there was no assignment in the executed written release and that insurance company was barred by the Parol Evidence Rule from presenting evidence to establish an implied assignment. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court holding that summary judgment was not proper when there was a question of fact surrounding the issue of an assignment. We find there is no assignment in the executed release and further that there is no question of fact on material issues; we hold that without evidence of fraud, precontract negotiations and all discussions are merged into and superseded by the terms of an executed written release. The decision of the Court of Civil Appeals is vacated; and this matter is remanded to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. HENDERSON
2023 OK 104
Case Number: SCBD-7527
Decided: 11/06/2023

¶1 On October 16, 2023, the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA), notified the Court that the respondent, Timothy Robert Henderson, (respondent), resigned from the OBA pending disciplinary proceedings. The disciplinary proceedings relate to formal charges filed for violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, 5 O.S. 2021, Ch. 1, app. 3-A, that he, while serving as a judge of the District Court in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, engaged in secretive, undisclosed sexual relationships with two Oklahoma County Assistant District Attorneys who were assigned the prosecution of criminal cases before him as a judge.

HAMILTON v. WELSH
2023 OK 103
Case Number: 119694
Decided: 10/24/2023

¶0 The parents of Elliott Williams created their individual wills and joint trust after Elliott died. A wrongful death lawsuit was filed on Elliott’s behalf, and the Williamses were statutory beneficiaries to proceeds from the lawsuit. Before they received any such proceeds, they attempted to transfer them into their trust for estate planning purposes. Both parents subsequently died before the proceeds were determined or distributed. The petitioner, the personal representative of Elliott’s mother’s estate, then sought to have Elliott’s mother’s share judicially determined to belong in the trust. The trial court determined they belonged in the trust. The personal representative of the father’s estate appealed, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. We hold that the proceeds from a wrongful death lawsuit can be transferred into a trust before they are obtained by the trust settlor, and if they are, they belong in the trust.

OKLAHOMA ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH v. TIMMONS
2023 OK 102
Case Number: 121538
Decided: 10/24/2023

¶0 The Oklahoma Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church applied for writs of mandamus and prohibition against Respondent, after a grant of mandatory injunctive relief. This Court previously granted writs of mandamus and prohibition by Order on October 5, 2023. We hold the doctrine of church autonomy applies and remand with instructions to dismiss.

OKLAHOMA ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH v. TIMMONS
2023 OK 101
Case Number: 121483
Decided: 10/24/2023

ULLMAN v. OKLAHOMA HIGHWAY PATROL
2023 OK 100
Case Number: 121422
Decided: 10/17/2023

¶0 The plaintiffs were allegedly injured from a collision with an Oklahoma Highway Patrol (OHP) Trooper. Less than three weeks after the accident, the plaintiffs’ lawyer sent the OHP a letter asking it to preserve any evidence relating to the incident, and to request some additional information. OHP forwarded the letter to the Oklahoma Office of Management & Enterprise Services (OMES) and OMES unilaterally determined that the request letter was the statutory notice of a governmental tort claim, triggering the time limits within the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act, 51 O.S. 2021 §§151 et. seq. (the Act). The plaintiffs’ lawyer disagreed. Less than one year after the accident, the lawyer sent a notice of governmental tort claim to OMES. Five months later, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the OHP, seeking recovery for their injuries. OHP filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the letter requesting the preservation of evidence was notice of a governmental tort claim triggering time limits which had already expired by the time the plaintiffs filed their lawsuit. The trial court agreed, and dismissed the cause. We retained it to determine whether the plaintiffs’ letter requesting the preservation of evidence constituted the required statutory notice of a governmental tort claim. We hold that it did not.

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. REEDY
2023 OK 99
Case Number: SCBD-7268
Decided: 10/17/2023

¶0 In 2018, the respondent, James Darrell Reedy pled guilty to manslaughter, in the State of Alabama, for recklessly causing the death of another person while operating a motor vehicle while he was under the influence of alcohol. Manslaughter is a felony in Alabama. On May 2, 2022, someone notified the Oklahoma Bar Association of respondent’s Alabama conviction, and the OBA, on June 3, 2022, notified this Court. Pursuant to Rule 7, of the Oklahoma Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, the Court entered an Order of Immediate Interim Suspension on June 20, 2022, and gave respondent the opportunity to show cause why the suspension should not be set aside. On October 10, 2022, the Court continued the interim suspension, and referred the matter to the Professional Responsibility Tribunal for a hearing to impose final discipline. The PRT recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two years and one day, and that costs be imposed. The Oklahoma Bar Association agreed with the recommendation and upon de novo review, we hold that the respondent’s license to practice law is suspended for two years and one day, retroactively beginning on June 20, 2022. The respondent is assessed costs in the sum of $2,883.68 for payment not later than ninety days after this opinion becomes final.

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. LANCE
2023 OK 98
Case Number: SCBD-7183 (Cons. w/ SCBD-7214)
Decided: 10/10/2023

¶1 This matter is before the Court for imposition of final discipline under combined Rules 6 and 7.2, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), 5 O.S.2023, Ch. 1, App. 1–A. Respondent Lance Timothy Lance was licensed to practice law in Oklahoma in 2000. A series of criminal and professional misconduct incidents involving Respondent began in January 2020 and culminated with his interim suspension in January 2022.

…

CONCLUSION

¶48 Consistently throughout the Rule 6 and Rule 7 proceedings, Respondent has tried to minimize the nature of his actions, civil and criminal, and their consequences to both his clients and the profession. In his criminal proceedings as well as this disciplinary proceeding Respondent has used his status as a lawyer to argue for, and receive, special privileges. Time after time Murray County law enforcement gave Respondent lenient treatment in traffic stops and welfare checks, despite his erratic and occasionally violent actions. The Murray County District Attorney’s office dismissed a felony charge, allowed Respondent to plead to deferred sentences, agreed to modify those sentences so they could be discharged while these disciplinary proceedings were pending, and then dismissed the cases to give Respondent a perceived advantage in these proceedings. Respondent has suggested to both the PRT and this Court that clients who complained about him, either to Judge Duck or the OBA, were neither unhappy nor harmed by his actions. He has refused to address the serious charge involving the shotgun in Count V, instead invoking the Fifth Amendment. While admitting he engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, he suggested the problem was really his failure to complete MCLE hours, not the unauthorized representation. He has consistently failed to show the good judgment we expect of a lawyer. Silvernail, 2022 OK 68, ¶ 31, 522 P.3d at 472.

COSTS

¶49 The OBA filed an application to assess costs of $9,252.87, pursuant to Rules 6.13 and 6.16, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S. ch. 1, app. 1-A. Respondent challenges the amount. The bulk of the expense was for required transcripts for the pretrial conference and PRT hearing. We find the payment of costs appropriate. Respondent is ordered to pay the costs of this proceedings in the amount of $9,252.87 within ninety days from the date of this Opinion.

RESPONDENT IS DISBARRED
AND ORDERED TO PAY COSTS OF $9,252.87

OKLAHOMA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS v. BYRD
2023 OK 97
Case Number: 119908 (cons. w/ 119907)
Decided: 10/10/2023

¶0 On request of Tulsa County, the Oklahoma State Auditor and Inspector calculated the jail’s “actual daily cost” to house Department of Corrections inmates pursuant to 57 O.S. § 38. The State Auditor’s “actual daily cost” calculation included the jail’s consumable costs and fixed costs. The Oklahoma Department of Corrections filed suit against the State Auditor and Inspector and Tulsa County, arguing “actual daily cost” is limited to consumable costs and excludes fixed costs. The district court found it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case but found the State Auditor’s calculation was rational. The Court of Civil Appeals found the district court had limited jurisdiction to hear the dispute and determined “actual daily cost” includes both consumable costs and fixed costs. The Court of Civil Appeals further determined the Oklahoma Administrative Procedure Act, and the doctrine of issue preclusion did not bar judicial review. We hold on certiorari review that issue preclusion is not applicable, the separation of powers clause does not bar this Court from interpreting the meaning of “actual daily cost,” and “actual daily cost” includes any cost directly attributable to housing a DOC inmate.

…

CONCLUSION

¶34 Oklahoma law requires DOC to reimburse a county the cost of housing a DOC inmate. Title 57 O.S. 2017, § 38 sets the reimbursement rate at $27. In the event the “actual daily cost” of housing a DOC inmate exceeds $27, and DOC disputes the county’s proposed “actual daily cost” amount, the State Auditor will calculate the “actual daily cost.” We hold “actual daily cost” includes both consumable costs as well as those additional costs that are directly attributable to housing a DOC inmate.

LEO v. OKLAHOMA WATER RESOURCES BOARD
2023 OK 96
Case Number: 118892
Decided: 10/03/2023

¶0 Debbie Leo d/b/a Miller Lake Retreat, LLC, Larinda McClellan, Louise Redman Trust, Walter Myrl Redman, and Kenneth Roberts (collectively, “Petitioners”) appeal the district court’s order affirming the Oklahoma Water Resources Board’s (the OWRB) final order granting a permit to The City of Oklahoma City (the City) to divert stream water from the Kiamichi River in Pushmataha County, Oklahoma. The City filed a cross-appeal of the district court’s order denying its motion to dismiss Petitioners’ petition for judicial review for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. City contends that Petitioners’ failure to name the City as a respondent in their petition for judicial review of the OWRB’s order was a fatal, jurisdictional flaw under the Oklahoma Administrative Procedures Act, (OAPA). We hold that 75 O.S.2011, § 318(B)(2) requires that the agency (here, the OWRB) be named as a respondent in the caption of the petition for review for the district court to acquire jurisdiction to review a final agency order.However, Section 318(B)(2) of the OAPA does not require that the City be named as a respondent in the petition. Therefore, the district court’s order finding it had jurisdiction to review the final agency order is affirmed. We further hold the district court properly applied the Four Points of Law in O.A.C. § 785:20-5-4, including using the OWRB’s calculation of available stream water and evaluation of beneficial use, which was based on substantial evidence in the record, with no findings of prejudicial error. Therefore, the district court’s order affirming the OWRB’s order is affirmed.

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. RICHARDSON
2023 OK 95
Case Number: SCBD-7278
Decided: 10/02/2023

¶1 The State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association (Complainant) has presented this Court with an application to approve the resignation of Chadwick R. Richardson (Respondent) from membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association. Respondent wishes to resign pending disciplinary proceedings and investigation into alleged misconduct, as provided in Rule 8.1 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), 5 O.S. 2021, ch. 1, app. 1-A. Upon consideration of the Complainant’s application and the Respondent’s affidavit in support of resignation, we make the following findings:

a. Respondent was admitted to the Oklahoma Bar Association on April 30, 1993, and his bar number is 15589. On August 28, 2023, Respondent offered to resign his membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association and relinquish his right to practice law.

…

¶2 It is therefore ORDERED that Complainant’s application is approved and Respondent’s resignation during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings is accepted and approved effective October 2, 2023.

¶3 It is further ORDERED that Respondent’s name remain stricken from the Roll of Attorneys and that he may make no application for reinstatement to membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association prior to October 2, 2028.

¶4 It is further ORDERED that the Respondent comply with Rule 9.1, RGDP, no later than twenty (20) days from the date of this order.

¶5 It is further ORDERED that Respondent pay costs in the amount of $1,574.95 within thirty days from the date of this Order. Any consideration of any future Rule 11 petitions is conditioned upon such payment.

IN RE: AMENDMENT TO OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT RULE 1.301, FORM 5 PETITION IN ERROR
2023 OK 94
Decided: 09/25/2023

ORDER

Oklahoma Supreme Court Rule 1.301, Form 5 (Petition in Error), 12 O.S., ch. 15, app. 1, is hereby amended as shown on the attached Exhibits A and B. The amended rule shall be effective immediately.

RE: TRANSCRIPT RATES
2023 OK 93
Decided: 09/25/2023

ORDER SETTING TRANSCRIPT FEES

Pursuant to Okla. Const. Art. VII, §4 and §6, and 20 O.S. §106.4 (B), amended by Laws 2023, SB 296, c. 100, § 1, eff. November 1, 2023, the Oklahoma Supreme Court hereby sets the following per page transcript fee for preparation of transcripts of proceedings in the district courts:

¶1 For the preparation of a transcript from shorthand notes or recording device the court reporter is entitled to receive compensation at the following per page fee:

OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT	PER PAGE FEE
Standard Rate – Original and First Two Copies	$5.00
Additional Paper Copies–regular rate	$2.00
Additional Paper Copies — purchased by the Court Fund, District Attorney or any other State of Oklahoma Entity	$0.25
Differential Page Rate (for creating an original official transcript from the notes of another court reporter or by listening to an audio recording made with no court reporter present)	$7.00

BIRD v. PRUETT’S FOOD
2023 OK 92
Case Number: 120434
Decided: 09/26/2023

¶0 Plaintiff, an independent contractor hired to install a new checkout lane at Defendant’s store, was injured after falling off a ladder Defendant had supplied to aid Plaintiff in completing the work. Plaintiff initiated a negligence action, seeking damages from his injuries and lost wages. Plaintiff presented his case at trial, after which Defendant demurred to Plaintiff’s evidence. The trial court sustained the demurrer. Plaintiff appealed, and we retained the matter. We hold that Plaintiff failed to establish that Defendant owed him a duty of care.

MURROW v. PENNEY
2023 OK 91
Case Number: 120915
Decided: 09/19/2023

¶0 The defendant/appellee, Malcolm Penney left a wedding which was held at The Springs Event Venue and proceeded to drive the wrong way down a highway. He crashed head-on into a vehicle driven by Marissa Murrow, killing her. Murrows’ parents sued The Springs. They did not allege that The Springs over-served Penney. Rather, they alleged The Springs had a duty to prevent Penney from leaving, and to enforce their policies which prohibited outside alcohol from being brought onto the premises. The trial court determined that the event venue had no duty to prevent harm to third-parties such as the deceased, and it granted summary judgment to The Springs. The parents appealed, and we retained the cause. We hold that Oklahoma law does not recognize a duty on the part of a private event venue extending to third parties killed by a voluntarily intoxicated adult who attended, but was not “over-served” by the event venue.

OIL VALLEY PETROLEUM v. MOORE
2023 OK 90
Case Number: 119810
Decided: 09/19/2023

¶0 Plaintiff filed a proceeding in the District Court for Dewey County and requested the trial court to quiet title, cancel an oil and gas lease, and declare its top-lease to be in force and effect. Defendant moved for summary adjudication. Plaintiff also moved for summary adjudication. The Honorable Celo J. Harrel, Associate District Judge, granted defendant’s motion and denied plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff appealed and the Court of Civil Appeals reversed the judgment of the District Court and directed judgment for plaintiff. Defendant sought certiorari to review the opinion by the Court of Civil Appeals, and certiorari was granted. We hold: (1) Exhibits presented during summary adjudication proceedings were insufficient to show a material fact that a well was commercially profitable for the purpose of the habendum clause of an oil and gas lease; (2) An overriding royalty interest may be extinguished by an extinguishment of the working interest from which it was carved by a lessee’s surrender of the lease in substantial compliance with the lease, unless the surrender is the result of fraud or breach of a fiduciary relationship; and (3) Prevailing party status for the purpose of an attorney fee is determined in the trial court when not determined on appeal.

BS&B SAFETY SYSTEMS v. EDGERTON
2023 OK 89
Case Number: 121230
Decided: 09/19/2023

¶0 Appeal and the relief requested is recast as an original jurisdiction supervisory proceeding with an application to assume original jurisdiction and a request for a writ of mandamus. Original jurisdiction is assumed and writ is issued. District https://okcourtsandmore.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/BSB-SAFETY-SYSTEMS-v.-EDGERTON.pdfCourt’s order deeming appellant’s motion to dismiss as denied by operation of law is vacated, and the assigned judge in the District Court proceeding shall conduct a hearing on appellant’s motion to dismiss that was filed pursuant to the Oklahoma Citizens Participation Act.

IN THE MATTER OF THE REINSTATEMENT OF WELCH
2023 OK 88
Case Number: SCBD-7428
Decided: 09/18/2023

¶1 The petitioner, Joshua Todd Welch, was stricken from the roll of attorneys of the Oklahoma Bar Association on October 15, 2012, following his submission of resignation pending disciplinary proceedings; 2012 OK 83, 292 P.3d 510 (effective from April 19, 2012; see November 8, 2012, order granting rehearing, SCBD 5868). On March 15, 2023, Welch petitioned this Court for reinstatement as a member of the Oklahoma Bar Association. The Professional Responsibility Tribunal held a hearing on June 8, 2023 and the panel unanimously recommended that Welch be reinstated. Upon consideration of the matter, we find:

1) The attorney has met all the procedural requirements necessary for reinstatement in the Oklahoma Bar Association as set out in Rules 11, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S. 2021, ch.1, app. 1-A.

2) The attorney has established by clear and convincing evidence that he has not engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in the State of Oklahoma.

3) The attorney has established by clear and convincing evidence that he possesses the competency and learning in the law required for reinstatement to the Oklahoma Bar Association.

4) The attorney has established by clear and convincing evidence that he possesses the good moral character which would entitle him to be reinstated to the Oklahoma Bar Association.

¶2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the petition of Joshua Todd Welch for reinstatement to the Oklahoma Bar Association is hereby granted. Welch shall pay the costs associated with these proceedings in the amount of $174.83 within sixty (60) days of this order.

¶3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Welch shall pay his 2023 Bar Association dues within thirty (30) days of the date of this order. Reinstatement is conditional upon the attorney’s payment of these dues.

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. WIEHL
2023 OK 87
Case Number: SCBD-7359
Decided: 09/12/2023

¶0 Pursuant to Rule 7 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, this summary disciplinary proceeding arises from Respondent’s plea of no contest to three felony charges of assault and battery and 12 misdemeanor charges after a physical altercation in a bar. This Court issued an Order of Immediate Interim Suspension of Respondent’s license to practice law. After a hearing before the Professional Responsibility Tribunal, the Tribunal recommended that this Court suspend Respondent for one year, effective from the date of his interim suspension, and place Respondent on a deferred suspension until October 13, 2025, subject to certain conditions. We hold that Respondent is suspended for two years and one day from the date of this opinion and ordered to pay costs.

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOC. v. HILL
2023 OK 86
Case Number: 118680
Decided: 09/12/2023

¶0 Borrower pursued counterclaims against bank and its mortgage servicer following bank’s dismissal of its foreclosure action against borrower. A jury returned a verdict against bank on borrower’s wrongful foreclosure claim and a verdict against the mortgage servicer on multiple claims including violations of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act (OCPA) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The trial court awarded attorney’s fees and costs to borrower. Bank and mortgage servicer appealed and borrower counter-appealed. The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals dismissed in part borrower’s appeal and found neither the OCPA or the FDCPA was applicable. It reversed the attorney’s fee award and reduced the amount of awarded costs. In addition, it reversed the wrongful foreclosure judgment against bank and affirmed the remainder of the judgment which concerned breach of contract and tort claims against the mortgage servicer.

…

IV. CONCLUSION

¶39 On the basis of the foregoing, we dismiss that portion of Hill’s appeal seeking review of the trial court’s Category II punitive damages ruling; reverse Hill’s wrongful foreclosure judgment against U.S. Bank; reverse the OCPA portion of the judgment against Nationstar; affirm the FDCPA portion of the judgment against Nationstar, including the $1,000.00 award under the FDCPA; reverse the award of attorney’s fees and remand the matter to the trial court to determine a reasonable attorney’s fee consistent with this opinion; and reverse $1,223.39 of the costs awarded to Hill. The remainder of the judgment is affirmed.

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. LOCKARD
2023 OK 85
Case Number: SCBD-7505
Decided: 08/01/2023

ORDER OF IMMEDIATE INTERIM SUSPENSION

¶1 The Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA), in compliance with Rules 7.1 and 7.2 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), has forwarded to this Court certified copies of the Information, Probable Cause Affidavit, Plea of No Contest, Summary of Facts, Disposition Order, and Journal Entry of Deferred Sentencing, in the criminal matter of State of Oklahoma v. James Harry Lockard, Case No. CF-2023-111, in the District Court of Cleveland County. On March 31, 2023, Respondent James Harry Lockard entered a plea of no contest to Domestic Assault and Battery, a misdemeanor, in violation of 21 O.S., § 644(C), and Public Intoxication, a misdemeanor, in violation of 37A O.S., § 6-101(A)(8). The Court deferred sentencing for one year, until March 30, 2024.

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF THE OKLAHOMA TURNPIKE AUTHORITY
2023 OK 84
Case Number: 120619
Decided: 08/01/2023

¶0 The Oklahoma Turnpike Authority brought this original proceeding pursuant to 69 O.S.2021, § 1718, requesting that this Court approve revenue bonds to finance the construction of three turnpike projects, update and repair turnpike facilities and infrastructure, refund prior revenue bonds and notes, and pay other costs. Protestants challenged the proposed bonds on several grounds, arguing that the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority lacks legislative authority to construct the three turnpikes. This Court previously assumed original jurisdiction. We approve the proposed bond issue.

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. SMITH
2023 OK 83
Case Number: SCBD-7326
Decided: 07/26/2023

¶1 Pursuant to Rule 8 (Resignation Pending Disciplinary Proceedings), Oklahoma Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), 5 O.S.2011, ch. 1, app. 1-A, Respondent submitted an affidavit, filed July 3, 2023, seeking to resign his membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA) and relinquish his right to practice law pending disciplinary proceedings. On the same date, Complainant filed an application to this Court for an order approving the resignation of Respondent.

IN THE MATTER OF THE REINSTATEMENT OF GIERHART
2023 OK 82
Case Number: SCBD-7375
Decided: 06/27/2023

¶0 Petitioner, Douglas Mark Gierhart, filed a Petition for Reinstatement to Membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association. The Professional Responsibility Tribunal unanimously recommended that Petitioner should be reinstated. The Oklahoma Bar Association did not oppose Petitioner’s reinstatement. Upon review, we hold that Petitioner should be reinstated.

FITZPATRICK v. FITZPATRICK
2023 OK 81
Case Number: 118853
Decided: 06/20/2023

¶0 Appellant Jeremy Fitzpatrick appealed a decision of the trial court granting a dissolution of marriage. The Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, reversed the trial court. Appellee Nicole Fitzpatrick petitioned for writ of certiorari from this decision. We granted the petition for writ of certiorari, vacate the Court of Civil Appeals opinion, affirm the trial court’s decision, and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.

GUILBEAU v. DURANT H.M.A.
2023 OK 80
Case Number: 119901
Decided: 06/20/2023

¶0 After Appellant suffered a miscarriage, Hospital employees photographed the child’s remains and presented the images to her as part of Hospital’s bereavement program. Appellant sued Hospital and unnamed employees on theories of negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). The trial court dismissed the negligence claims. Appellant later dismissed the remaining IIED claim without prejudice, and without appealing the trial court’s dismissal of her negligence claims. In a subsequent lawsuit, Appellant re-alleged all of her original claims, added a new claim of invasion of privacy, and added Armor, a Hospital employee, as a defendant. The trial court granted Defendants’ partial motions to dismiss. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, finding that (1) Appellant was precluded from re-asserting her negligence claims in the second lawsuit, because she never sought review of the trial court’s dismissal of those claims in the first lawsuit; (2) Appellant’s addition of an invasion-of-privacy claim in the second lawsuit was not time-barred; however, (3) the invasion-of-privacy claim was properly dismissed because Appellant had no personal cause of action on these facts; and finally, (4) the addition of Armor as a defendant in the second lawsuit was barred by the statute of limitations.

COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS’ OPINION VACATED; TRIAL COURT AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART; CASE REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. MCCOY
2023 OK 79
Case Number: SCBD-7414
Decided: 06/20/2023

¶0 On August 29, 2022, Kassie Nicole McCoy, a licensed Oklahoma lawyer, entered a guilty plea to a misdemeanor count of Driving Under the Influence (1st) in Mesa County, Colorado District Court, Case No. 2022T966. On March 20, 2023, this Court entered an order of Interim Suspension under Rule 7 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings. The matter is before the Court to impose a final order of discipline.

ed Oklahoma lawyer, entered a guilty plea to a misdemeanor count of Driving Under the Influence (1st) in Mesa County, Colorado District Court, Case No. 2022T966. On March 20, 2023, this Court entered an order of Interim Suspension under Rule 7 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings. The matter is before the Court to impose a final order of discipline.

RESPONDENT IS SUSPENDED FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW FOR TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THIS OPINION WITH REINSTATEMENT UPON SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF HER OKLAHOMA AND COLORADO PROBATIONARY REQUIREMENTS.

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. STACK
2023 OK 78
Case Number: SCBD-7489
Decided: 06/19/2023

¶1 The State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA) has presented the Court with an application to approve the resignation of William Andrew Stack (Respondent) from membership in the OBA. Respondent, was admitted to membership on April 21, 2000; his OBA number is 18606; and he is currently active and in good standing. Respondent’s official roster address as shown by the OBA is 1210 Tiffany Lane, Longview Texas 75604-2805.

¶2 On May 17, 2023, the OBA filed an application requesting approval of Respondent’s resignation. Simultaneously, the OBA filed Respondent’s Affidavit of Resignation Pending Disciplinary Proceedings pursuant to Rules 8.1 and 8.2 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S.2021, ch. 1, app. 1-A. In his affidavit, Respondent voluntarily relinquished his right to practice law, and further requested that this Court approve his resignation from membership in the OBA. Respondent acknowledged the OBA’s investigation into specific allegations of misconduct as set forth in more detail herein.

…

¶16 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT the resignation of William Andrew Stack be approved, and that his resignation is deemed effective on the date it was filed in this Court, May 17, 2023.

¶17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent’s name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys, and–because an attorney’s resignation pending disciplinary proceedings is tantamount to disbarment–he may not apply for reinstatement of his license to practice law (and of his membership in the Bar) before the lapse of five (5) years from the effective date of this Order (May 17, 2023); additionally, Respondent shall comply in all respects with the notification requirements of RGDP 9.1.

¶18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Complainant has not sought reimbursement of costs associated with the investigation of this matter, and therefore, no reimbursement is ordered.

IN RE AMENDMENT OF OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT RULE 1.23
2023 OK 77
Decided: 06/19/2023

ORDER

¶1 The Court hereby amends Oklahoma Supreme Court Rule 1.23, 12 O.S.2021, ch. 15, app 1., as shown on the attached Exhibits A and B, effective immediately.

¶2 DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE THIS 19th DAY OF JUNE, 2023.

/S/CHIEF JUSTICE

ALL JUSTICES CONCUR.

IN RE AMENDMENT OF OKLA. SUPREME COURT RULES FOR DRIVER’S LICENSE APPEALS
2023 OK 76
Decided: 06/19/2023

¶1 The Court hereby amends Rules 1.10, 1.21, and 1.34, Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules, 12 O.S., ch. 15, app 1., as shown on the attached Exhibits A and B, effective immediately.

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. ELSEY
2023 OK 75
Case Number: SCBD-6553
Decided: 06/20/2023

¶0 A summary disciplinary proceeding resulting from Respondent’s pleas of guilty and no contest to two felony charges for driving under the influence of alcohol and multiple misdemeanor charges resulted in the Court placing him on a deferred suspension of two years with certain probationary rules. After two years, the Oklahoma Bar Association filed a Notice to Court Regarding Respondent’s Probation, contending that Elsey failed to cooperate or otherwise complete an alcohol test or urinalysis as requested by the Oklahoma Bar Association. This Court ordered an evidentiary hearing. The Trial Panel recommended this Court place Elsey on a deferred suspension for an additional six months, subject to certain conditions. We hold that Respondent completed the terms of his probation, and we dismiss his two-year deferred suspension.

CHILDERS v. ARROWOOD
2023 OK 74
Case Number: 119815
Decided: 06/20/2023

¶0 The Childers purchased property in Creek County which did not have access to utilities. The Childers sought a utility easement across the Arrowoods’ property pursuant to 27 O.S. § 6, arguing that “private ways of necessity” within 27 O.S. § 6 include utilities. The trial court granted the utility easement. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, noting that Oklahoma’s public policy favoring land utilization would favor granting the Childers’ requested utility easement. We hold that “private ways of necessity” within 27 O.S. § 6 include access to utilities that are necessary for the effective use and reasonable enjoyment of property.

IN RE AMENDMENTS TO THE RULES GOVERNING COMPLAINTS ON JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
2023 OK 73
Decided: 06/19/2023

ORDER

¶1 Pursuant to the general administrative authority that Article VII, Section 6 of the Oklahoma Constitution vests in this Court over all courts of this State except the Court on the Judiciary and the Senate sitting as a Court of Impeachment, the Court hereby adopts the attached amendments to the Rules Governing Complaints on Judicial Misconduct, 5 O.S.2021, ch. 1, app. 4A. Said amendments are adopted in place of the rules originally adopted in October of 2006. In re Rules Governing Complaints on Judicial Misconduct, 2006 OK 82, 186 P.3d 926. A clean copy of the amended rules is attached as “Exhibit A.”

IN THE MATTER OF THE REINSTATEMENT OF KATINE
2023 OK 72
Case Number: SCBD-7353
Decided: 06/20/2023

¶0 Petitioner seeks reinstatement to the Oklahoma Bar Association after his voluntary resignation from the roll of attorneys in 2012. Petitioner was admitted to the Oklahoma Bar Association in 2000. He became a member of the state bar of the State of Texas in 1985. From his date of Texas admission until the present date, Petitioner has practiced law in the State of Texas. At the time of his resignation, Petitioner was in good standing, he was not under investigation by the OBA for any ethical violation, and he had never been disciplined or disbarred by this Court or any other state or federal bar and he has not resigned pending investigation or disciplinary proceedings from the Oklahoma State Bar Association.

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT GRANTED

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. JORDAN
2023 OK 71
Case Number: SCBD-7504
Decided: 06/19/2023

¶1 The Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA), in compliance with Rules 7.1 and 7.2 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), forwarded to this Court certified copies of the Indictment, Petition to Enter Plea of Guilty and Order Entering Plea, Plea Agreement Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C), and Judgment In A Criminal Case in the criminal matter of United States v. Courtney Rae Jordan, Case No. 4:22-CR-00255-001-GKF, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. On May 18, 2023, Courtney Rae Jordan entered a plea of guilty to Eluding Police Officers in Indian Country, a misdemeanor and felony crime pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1151, 1152, 13 and 21 O.S. § 540(A)(a)-(b). The Court sentenced Courtney Rae Jordan to probation for a term of one year.

¶2 Rule 7.2 of the RGDP provides that a certified copy of a plea of guilty, an order deferring judgment and sentence, or information and judgment and sentence of conviction “shall constitute the charge and be conclusive evidence of the commission of the crime upon which the judgment and sentence is based and shall suffice as the basis for discipline in accordance with these rules.”

¶3 Rule 7.3 of the RGDP provides: “upon receipt of the certified copies of Judgment and Sentence on a plea of guilty, order deferring judgment and sentence, indictment or information and the judgment and sentence, the Supreme Court may by order immediately suspend the lawyer from the practice of law until further order of the Court.”

¶4 Having received certified copies of these papers and orders, this Court orders that Courtney Rae Jordan is immediately suspended from the practice of law. Courtney Rae Jordan is directed to show cause, if any, no later than July 5, 2023, why this order of immediate interim suspension from the practice of law should be set aside. See Rule 7.3, RGDP. The OBA has until July 19, 2023, to respond.

¶5 Pursuant to Rule 7.4 of the RGDP, Courtney Rae Jordan has until August 3, 2023, to show cause in writing why a final order of discipline should not be made. The written return shall be verified and expressly state whether a hearing is desired. The lawyer may, in the interest of explaining the conduct or by way of mitigating the discipline to be imposed, file a brief and/or any evidence tending to mitigate the severity of discipline. The OBA has until August 17, 2023, to respond.

BERKSON v. STATE ex rel. ASKINS AS ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR OF THE COURTS
2023 OK 70
Case Number: 120589
Decided: 06/13/2023

¶0 Lawyer filed an action in the District Court of Tulsa County and challenged a ten-dollar fee collected for the Lengthy Trial Fund when a new case is filed. Defendants filed motions to dismiss. The Honorable Clifford J. Smith, Associate District Judge, granted the two motions to dismiss and lawyer appealed. The State of Oklahoma filed a motion to retain the appeal for review by the Supreme Court and the motion was granted. State of Oklahoma filed a motion for oral argument, the motion was deferred to when the Court considered the appeal. The motion for an appellate oral argument is denied. We hold: Lawyer’s assignments of procedural error are not preserved for appeal; Lawyer’s assignments of error based upon legal standing to bring the action are correct in part; The two orders granting the motions to dismiss must be affirmed on the ground lawyer’s petition failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

TOCH v. CITY OF TULSA
2023 OK 69
Case Number: 119662; Comp. w/119831
Decided: 06/13/2023

¶0 TOCH, LLC, the owner and operator of Aloft Hotel alleged that the Tulsa Tourism Improvement District No. 1 was allegedly improperly created because fifty percent or more of the affected hotel owners protested in writing prior to its creation. City of Tulsa and Tulsa Hotel Partners sought summary judgment on this issue and disputed this material fact by submitting affidavits to disprove TOCH’s allegation. The trial court erred when it made a factual determination on this controverted fact and granted summary judgment to City and Intervenor on this issue. Weighing disputed evidence is not proper on summary judgment. The trial court’s decision is reversed. We previously issued an order to retain this appeal.

IN THE MATTER OF STRIKING OF NAMES OF MEMBERS OF THE OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION
2023 OK 68
Case Number: SCBD-7261
Decided: 06/12/2023

The Board of Governors of the Oklahoma Bar Association filed an Application for Order Striking Names of attorneys from the Oklahoma Bar Association’s membership rolls for failure to pay dues as members of the Oklahoma Bar Association for the year 2022.

Pursuant to the Rules Creating and Controlling the Oklahoma Bar Association (Rules), 5 O.S. 2011, ch. 1, app. 1, art. VIII, §2, the Oklahoma Bar Association’s members named on Exhibit A, attached hereto, were suspended from membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association and prohibited from practicing law in the State of Oklahoma by this Court’s Order of June 6, 2022 and thereafter by Correction Order dated June 9, 2022, for failure to pay their 2022 dues in accordance with Article VIII, Section 2 of the Rules. Based upon the application, this Court finds that the Board of Governors determined at its May 19, 2023 meeting that none of the Oklahoma Bar Association members named on Exhibit A, attached hereto, have applied for reinstatement, pursuant to Article VIII, Section 4 of the Rules, at the time of the filing of its application. The Board of Governors further declared that the members named on Exhibit A, attached hereto, shall cease to be members of the Oklahoma Bar Association and that their names should therefore be stricken from the membership rolls and the Roll of Attorneys on June 12, 2023, pursuant to Article VIII, Section 5 of the Rules. This Court further finds that the actions of the Board of Governors of the Oklahoma Bar Association are in compliance with the Rules.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the attorneys named as set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, are hereby stricken from the Roll of Attorneys on June 12, 2023 for failure to pay their dues as members of the Association for the year 2022.

IN THE MATTER OF STRIKING OF NAMES OF MEMBERS OF THE OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION
2023 OK 67
Case Number: SCBD-7260
Decided: 06/12/2023

The Board of Governors of the Oklahoma Bar Association filed an Application for Order Striking Names of attorneys from the Oklahoma Bar Association’s membership rolls and from the practice of law in the State of Oklahoma for failure to comply with the Rules for Mandatory Continuing Legal Education, 5 O.S. 2011, ch. 1, app. 1-B, for the year 2021.

Pursuant to Rule 6(d) of the Rules for Mandatory Continuing Legal Education, the Oklahoma Bar Association’s members named on Exhibit A, attached hereto, were suspended from membership in the Association and the practice of law in the State of Oklahoma by Order of this Court on June 6, 2022, for noncompliance with Rules 3 and 5 of the Rules for Mandatory Continuing Legal Education for the year 2021. Based on its application, this Court finds that the Board of Governors determined at their May 19, 2023 meeting that none of the Oklahoma Bar Association’s members named on Exhibit A, attached hereto, have applied for reinstatement within one year of the suspension order. Further, the Board of Governors declared that the members named on Exhibit A, attached hereto, shall cease to be members of the Oklahoma Bar Association and their names should therefore be stricken from its membership rolls and the Roll of Attorneys on June 12, 2023. This Court finds that the actions of the Board of Governors of the Oklahoma Bar Association are in compliance with the Rules.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the attorneys named on Exhibit A, attached hereto, are hereby stricken from the Roll of Attorneys on June 12, 2023 for failure to comply with the Rules for Mandatory Continuing Legal Education for the year 2021.

IN THE MATTER OF THE SUSPENSION OF MEMBERS OF THE OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION
2023 OK 66
Case Number: SCBD-7492
Decided: 06/12/2023

On May 25, 2023, the Board of Governors of the Oklahoma Bar Association filed an Application for the suspension of Oklahoma Bar Association members who failed to comply with mandatory legal education requirements for the year 2022 as required by Rules 3 and 5 of the Rules for Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE Rules), 5 O.S. 2011, ch. 1, app. 1-B. The Board of Governors recommended the members, whose names appear on Exhibit A attached to the Application, be suspended from membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association and prohibited from the practice of law in the State of Oklahoma, as provided by Rule 6 of the MCLE Rules.

This Court finds that on March 15, 2023, the Executive Director of the Oklahoma Bar Association mailed, by certified mail, to all Oklahoma Bar Association members not in compliance with Rules 3 and 5 of the MCLE Rules, an Order to Show Cause within sixty days why the member’s membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association should not be suspended. The Board of Governors determined that the Oklahoma Bar Association members named on Exhibit A of its Application have not shown good cause why the member’s membership should not be suspended.

This Court, having considered the Application of the Board of Governors of the Oklahoma Bar Association, finds that each of the Oklahoma Bar Association members named on Exhibit A, attached hereto, should be suspended from Oklahoma Bar Association membership and shall not practice law in this state until reinstated.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the attorneys named on Exhibit A, attached hereto, are hereby suspended from membership in the Association and prohibited from the practice of law in the State of Oklahoma for failure to comply with the MCLE Rules for the year 2022.

IN THE MATTER OF THE SUSPENSION OF MEMBERS OF THE OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION
2023 OK 65
Case Number: SCBD-7491
Decided: 06/12/2023

On May 25, 2023, the Board of Governors of the Oklahoma Bar Association filed an Application for the suspension of Oklahoma Bar Association members who failed to pay dues for the year 2023 as required by the Rules Creating and Controlling the Oklahoma Bar Association (Rules), 5 O.S. 2011, ch. 1, app. 1, art. VIII, §1. The Board of Governors recommended that the members whose names appear on the Exhibit A attached to the Application be suspended from membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association and from the practice of law in the State of Oklahoma, as provided by the Rules, 5 O.S. 2011, ch. 1, app. 1, art. VIII, §2.

This Court finds that on April 15, 2023, the Executive Director of the Oklahoma Bar Association notified by certified mail all members delinquent in the payment of dues and/or expense charges to the Oklahoma Bar Association for the year 2023. The Board of Governors have determined that the members set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto, have not paid their dues and/or expense charges for the year as provided in the Rules.

This Court, having considered the Application of the Board of Governors of the Oklahoma Bar Association, finds that each of the Oklahoma Bar Association members named on Exhibit A, attached hereto, should be suspended from the Oklahoma Bar Association membership and shall not practice law in the State of Oklahoma until reinstated.

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. BETHEA
2023 OK 64
Case Number: SCBD-7443
Decided: 06/05/2023
As Corrected: June 6, 2023

¶1 On April 6, 2023, this Court entered a Show Cause Order pursuant to Rule 7.3 the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), 5 O.S.2021, ch. 1, app. 1-A, directing Respondent Kenyatta Ray Bethea to show cause by no later than April 20, 2023, why an Order of Immediate Interim Suspension should not be entered. This Court hereby notes that Respondent filed a response on April 20, 2023; that Complainant, the Oklahoma Bar Association, filed a reply on May 4, 2023; and that Respondent filed a sur-reply with leave of court on May 22, 2023.

¶2 If Respondent demonstrates good cause, Rule 7.3 provides: “Upon good cause shown, the Court may decline to enter an order of immediate suspension when it appears to be in the interest of justice to do so, due regard being had to maintaining the integrity of and confidence in the profession.” But if Respondent fails to demonstrate good cause, Rule 7.3 provides: “If good cause is not shown, the Court may by order immediately suspend the lawyer from the practice of law until further order of the Court.” The Court hereby finds Respondent has failed to demonstrate good cause why an Order of Immediate Interim Suspension should not be entered.

¶3 Having received certified copies of the judgment and sentence on a plea of guilty and having determined that good cause has not been shown for preventing entry of an Order of Immediate Interim Suspension, this Court hereby orders that Kenyatta Ray Bethea is immediately suspended from the practice of law.

¶4 Rule 7.2 of the RGDP provides that a certified copy of a plea of guilty, an order deferring judgment and sentence, or information and judgment and sentence of conviction “shall constitute the charge and be conclusive evidence of the commission of the crime upon which the judgment and sentence is based and shall suffice as the basis for discipline in accordance with these rules.” Pursuant to Rule 7.4 of the RGDP, Kenyatta Ray Bethea has until Monday, July 10, 2023, to show cause in writing why a final order of discipline should not be imposed, to request a hearing, or to file a brief and any evidence tending to mitigate the severity of discipline. The OBA has until Monday, July 24, 2023, to respond.

IN RE FEE SCHEDULE FOR STATE BD. OF EXAMINERS OF CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
2023 OK 63
Decided: 06/05/2023

PURSUANT TO the provisions of 20 O.S. § 1506, the Court hereby approves and authorizes the attached Fee Schedule for the State Board of Examiners of Certified Shorthand Reporters. This schedule shall become effective June 9, 2023 and it shall supersede the Fee Schedule issued on April 8, 2019 by administrative order No. SCAD-2019-32 (2019 OK 19).

MTGLQ INVESTORS v. WITHERSPOON
2023 OK 62
Case Number: 118355
Decided: 06/06/2023

¶0 Plaintiff/Appellant MTGLQ Investors, L.P. brought a mortgage foreclosure action against Defendant/Appellee Joe H. Witherspoon and Defendant Cindy D. Witherspoon. The trial court found the statute of limitations had expired and granted summary judgment in favor of the Witherspoons. MTGLQ appealed, and Division III of the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. We granted certiorari and hold that (1) pursuant to 12A O.S.2011, § 3-118(a), the statute of limitations begins to run when the note holder exercises the option to accelerate an installment note, and (2) voluntary dismissal of a foreclosure action decelerates the loan as a matter of law. As a result, the foreclosure action is not barred by the statute of limitations, and the Witherspoons are not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

TIB-THE INDEPENDENT BANKERS BANK v. GOERKE
2023 OK 61
Case Number: 119609
Decided: 05/31/2023

¶0 Plaintiff/Appellant, TIB-The Independent Bankers Bank, brought a foreclosure action against Defendant, Kyle Goerke, and named Defendant/Appellee, Joseph Goerke (“Goerke”), as a party based on a mortgage he held on the property in question. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Goerke, finding that Plaintiff’s cause of action was barred based on the doctrines of claim splitting and claim preclusion because Goerke was named in a prior foreclosure action by TIB which was dismissed with prejudice. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court. On certiorari, we hold that Plaintiff’s claim against Goerke is not barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion.

OKLAHOMA CALL FOR REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA
2023 OK 60
Case Number: 120376
Decided: 05/31/2023

¶0 The Petitioners filed an application to assume original jurisdiction seeking declaratory relief and to enjoin enforcement of two laws which criminalize abortion. We assume original jurisdiction, grant declaratory relief and deny injunctive relief and writ of prohibition.

HIRSCHFELD v. OKLAHOMA TURNPIKE AUTHORITY
2023 OK 59
Case Number: 120981
Decided: 05/31/2023

¶0 A group of landowners filed a petition for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, claiming that the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority violated the Open Meeting Act, 25 O.S.2021, §§ 301 to 314, regarding its notice to the public of the ACCESS Oklahoma Program. Both parties sought summary judgment. The district court rendered summary judgment in the landowners’ favor, finding that the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority willfully violated the Open Meeting Act. We retained Oklahoma Turnpike Authority’s appeal. We hold that the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority gave sufficient notice of the agenda items that the landowners challenge. We further rule that the lack of notice regarding the announcement of the ACCESS Oklahoma Program at the February 2022 meeting did not violate the Open Meeting Act because the announcement was for informational purposes only.

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. ODOM
2023 OK 58
Case Number: SCBD-7413
Decided: 05/23/2023

¶0 Pursuant to Rule 7.7 of the Oklahoma Rules of Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S.2011, ch. 1, app. 1-A, the Complainant, Oklahoma Bar Association, caused documentation to be transmitted to the Chief Justice of this Court following the imposition of a three-year suspension from the practice of law in the state of Louisiana against Respondent, Richmond C. Odom. Upon order of this Court, Respondent filed a Response and the Bar filed a brief detailing Respondent’s past history and recommending discipline.

RESPONDENT IS SUSPENDED FOR THREE YEARS TO RUN CONCURRENT WITH LOUISIANA DISCIPLINE.

PIKE OFF OTA v. OKLAHOMA TURNPIKE AUTHORITY
2023 OK 57
Case Number: 121039
Decided: 05/23/2023

¶0 The appellants challenge the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority’s authority to construct new turnpikes under the ACCESS Oklahoma Program. The Oklahoma Turnpike Authority moved to dismiss the appellants’ claims, arguing that the claims are within the exclusive original jurisdiction of this Court. The district court granted the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority’s motion to dismiss, and the appellants appealed. This Court retained the case. We hold that this Court has exclusive original jurisdiction to determine whether the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority is authorized to construct the proposed turnpikes in the bond validation matter. We further rule that the appellants failed to establish that they have a clear legal right to the injunctive and/or mandamus relief sought. The appellants’ claim is also dependent upon the Court exercising its exclusive jurisdiction in the bond validation proceeding.

DISTRICT COURT’S JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. FIELDS
2023 OK 56
Case Number: SCBD-6906
Decided: 05/09/2023

¶0 The Oklahoma Bar Association commenced disciplinary proceedings against Respondent, who committed professional misconduct by receiving attorney’s fees that were not approved by the probate court, failing to cooperate in the Oklahoma Bar Association’s investigation, and breaching his Diversion Program Agreement. We previously suspended Respondent for one year and ordered him within 90 days to repay the attorney’s fees he received and to pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings. Respondent failed to comply with the Court’s suspension order. The Oklahoma Bar Association filed a Notice of Respondent’s Non-Compliance, and this Court ordered an evidentiary hearing. The Trial Panel recommended this Court suspend Fields from the practice of law for an additional two years and one day due to his failure to comply with the Court’s suspension order and participate in the current disciplinary proceedings. We hold that Fields’s conduct warrants an additional one year and one day suspension, and Fields must seek reinstatement to practice law after his suspension. We further order Fields to pay the costs of these disciplinary proceedings.

IN RE AMENDMENT TO 12 O.S. CH. 15 APP. 1 RULES OF OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT
2023 OK 55
Decided: 05/08/2023
As Clarified: May 22, 2023

The Court hereby clarifies the May 8, 2023 Order in this matter amending paragraph (a) of Oklahoma Supreme Court Rule 1.21, 12 O.S.2021, Ch. 15, App. 1.

In ¶ 1, the first sentence, second line, the words “after a” are stricken and the words “within thirty days from the date the” are reinstated so that the Order amending Rule 1.21 will state the following: (additions indicated by underline, deletions indicated by strikeout):

(a) District Court Appeals.

An appeal from the district court may be is commenced by filing a petition in error with the Clerk of the Supreme Court within thirty days from the date the judgment, decree, or appealable order prepared in conformance with 12 O.S. § 696.3 was is filed with the clerk of the district court. 12 O.S. § 990A.

The amendment remains the same in all other respects.

¶1 The Court hereby amends paragraph (a) of Oklahoma Supreme Court Rule 1.21, 12 O.S.2021, Ch. 15, App. 1, as follows (additions indicated by underline, deletions indicated by strikeout):

(a) District Court Appeals.

An appeal from the district court may be is commenced by filing a petition in error with the Clerk of the Supreme Court after a within thirty days from the date the judgment, decree, or appealable order prepared in conformance with 12 O.S. § 696.3 was is filed with the clerk of the district court. 12 O.S. § 990A.

The following shall not constitute a judgment, decree or appealable order: minute orders or minute entries; docket entries or docket minutes; a verdict; an informal statement of the proceedings and relief awarded, including, but not limited to, summary orders or summary minutes, or a letter or other writing to a party or parties indicating the ruling or instructions for preparing the judgment, decree or appealable order. 12 O.S. §696.2

The date of filing of a judgment, decree or appealable order with the clerk of the district court shall be presumed to be the date of the district court clerk’s file stamp thereon.

If the appellant did not prepare the judgment, decree, or appealable order, and Section 696.2 of this title required a copy of the judgment, decree, or appealable order to be mailed to the appellant, the appellee may limit the appellant’s time for lodging an appeal by filing proof of service on the appellant with the district court clerk. See 12 O.S. § 990A(A); Owens v. Owens, 2023 OK 12. and the court records do not reflect the mailing of a copy of the judgment, decree, or appealable order to the appellant within three (3) days, exclusive of weekends and holidays, after the filing of the judgment, decree, or appealable order, the petition in error may be filed within thirty (30) days after the earliest date on which the court records show that a copy of the judgment, decree, or appealable order was mailed to the appellant. ~~12 O.S. § 990A~~. See Tidemark Exploration, Inc. v. ~~Good,_{1998 OK 67, 967 P.2d 1194}.~~

For cross or multiple appeals Rule 1.27 is applicable. The interval allowed for filing a petition in error may not be extended by either the district court or the Supreme Court.

The times to appeal final orders of tribunals other than the district court (for example, Corporation Commission, Tax Commission, and Court of Tax Review) are governed by the specific statutory authority for such appeals, except when these Rules specifically authorize a different period. See Part IV of these Rules.

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. LOWERY
2023 OK 54
Case Number: SCBD-7399
Decided: 05/09/2023

¶0 Complainant, State of Oklahoma ex rel.Oklahoma Bar Association, initiated this disciplinary proceeding pursuant to the reciprocal discipline Rule 7.7 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, Okla. Stat. tit. 5, ch. 1, app. 1–A after the Illinois Supreme Court issued an order suspending Respondent for thirty days and requiring successful completion of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission Seminar within one year. Complainant recommends Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for thirty days. We suspend Respondent from the practice of law for thirty days with reinstatement conditioned upon Respondent’s completion of the professional seminar ordered by the Illinois Supreme Court.

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. LITTLEFIELD
2023 OK 53
Case Number: SCBD-7259
Decided: 05/02/2023

¶0 Complainant brought this matter pursuant to Rule 7 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings. This summary disciplinary proceeding arises from Respondent’s plea of guilty to felony Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol Second and Subsequent. This Court issued an Order of Immediate Interim Suspension of Respondent’s license to practice law. The Professional Responsibility Tribunal held a hearing and recommended a one year suspension with time remaining deferred. We suspend Respondent from the practice of law for one year effective from the date of his interim suspension.

HERRERA-CHACON v. STATE
2023 OK 52
Case Number: 120985
Decided: 05/01/2023

¶2 Through legislation effective May 19, 2022, the Legislature created a new division of the Office of Management and Enterprise Services named Service Oklahoma. The Legislature fully transferred all the powers, duties, and responsibilities previously exercised by the Driver License Services Division of the Department of Public Safety to Service Oklahoma. All employees of the Driver License Services Division of the Department were transferred to Service Oklahoma as well. 47 O.S. Supp. 2022, § 3-101. See Laws 2022, c. 282, § 1, emerg. eff. May 19, 2022.

¶3 Numerous statutes were amended in conjunction to reflect the transition of these duties and powers of the Department to Service Oklahoma. 47 O.S. Supp. 2022, § 6-211, which provides for the right to appeal a driver license revocation, suspension, cancellation, or denial to the district court, was amended. References to “the Department” were stricken and replaced with “Service Oklahoma.” Laws 2022, HB 3419, c. 282, § 72, emerg. eff. May 19, 2022.

¶4 However, a second version of 47 O.S. Supp. 2022, § 6-211 was enacted into law during the second regular legislative session which became effective November 1, 2022. Laws 2022, SB 366, c. 376, § 2, eff. November 1, 2022. In this version, references to the Department were not removed. New language was added retaining references to the Department.

¶5 Appellant takes the position that through enacting this second version of 47 O.S. Supp. 2022, § 6-211, which references the Department, the Legislature did not intend to transfer the Department’s appeals and revocations duties to Service Oklahoma as those duties relate to persons operating or being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicants.

¶6 Appellant reasons that certain statutes cited in the second version of 47 O.S. Supp. 2022, § 6-211 relating to persons operating or being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicants also retain references to the Department and omit references to Service Oklahoma. Appellant further argues that since the aforementioned duties and powers were not transferred to Service Oklahoma they remain with the Department, thus Service Oklahoma has no standing to defend this appeal as Service Oklahoma is not the real party in interest.

¶7 The Court does not agree. The primary goal of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the legislative intent and purpose as expressed by the statutory language. American Airlines, Inc. v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 2014 OK 95, ¶ 33, 341 P.3d 56. To do this, we first look to the language of the statute. Rickard v. Coulimore, 2022 OK 9, 5, 505 P.3d 920, 923. If the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, this Court must apply the plain and ordinary meaning of the words. Id. (citing 25 O.S.2011 § 1). Only when the legislative intent cannot be determined from the statutory language due to ambiguity or conflict should rules of statutory construction be employed. Rickard, 2022 OK 9, 5, 505 P.3d at 923.

¶8 Where a statute’s meaning is uncertain it is to be given a reasonable construction, one that will avoid an absurd result if this can be done without violating legislative intent. Odom v. Penske Truck Leasing Co., 2018 OK 23, ¶ 35, 415 P.3d 521. Different provisions in an Act may be considered together with other enactments on the same subject to resolve ambiguities. American Airlines, at ¶ 33. Conflicts between statutory provisions will be resolved in favor of a construction which promotes, rather than limits, the Legislature’s intent and an act’s purpose. Oklahoma Ass’n of Broadcasters, Inc. v. City of Norman, 2016 OK 119, ¶ 27, 390 P.3d 689.

¶9 The plain language in 47 O.S. Supp. 2022, § 3-101 establishes the Legislature’s intent to fully transfer all the powers, duties, and responsibilities of the Driver License Services Division of the Department to Service Oklahoma, without exception. All employees whose duties were transferred under the Act were transferred to Service Oklahoma, without exception. At the same time, the plain language in the second version of 47 O.S. Supp. 2022, § 6-211 and the statutes cited therein continue to contemplate the Driver License Services Division of the Department’s role in driver license revocations and appeals in implied consent cases. However, those powers, duties, and responsibilities were transferred from the Driver License Services Division of the Department to Service Oklahoma by 47 O.S. Supp. 2022, § 3-101. Clearly, there are conflicts and inconsistencies between the statutory provisions.

¶10 As a result, rules of statutory construction must be employed. We are to construe 47 O.S. Supp. 2022, § 6-211 in a manner that avoids an absurd result and gives effect to the intent of the Legislature. It would be absurd to construe 47 O.S. Supp. 2022, § 6-211 to mean that the Driver License Services Division of the Department continues to have powers, duties, and responsibilities over driver license revocations and appeals in implied consent cases when the Driver License Services Division of the Department no longer exists. We are to construe 47 O.S. Supp. 2022, § 6-211 in a manner that promotes the Legislature’s intent, which, clearly, was to transfer all the powers, duties, and responsibilities of the Driver License Services Division of the Department to Service Oklahoma, pursuant to 47 O.S. Supp. 2022, § 3-101.

¶11 Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that certain references to the Department which were not removed from the second version of 47 O.S. Supp. 2022, § 6-211 must be deemed the result of an unintentional oversight, rather than the Legislature’s intent to carve out an exception for implied consent cases.

¶12 Based on the foregoing, Appellee Service Oklahoma has standing to appear and defend the State of Oklahoma in this Cause.

¶13 Appellant’s Motion to strike Appellee’s Answer Brief for lack of standing is hereby denied.

TERRAL TELEPHONE CO. v. OKLAHOMA STATE BD. OF EQUALIZATION
2023 OK 51
Case Number: 120943
Decided: 05/02/2023

¶0 The Respondent, Oklahoma State Board of Equalization, assessed the ad valorem tax concerning the property of the Complainant, Terral Telephone Company. The Complainant protested the assessment. The Respondent moved for dismissal alleging the protest was non-compliant and untimely. The Court of Tax Review agreed and ruled that the protest did not comply with the statutes and rules necessary to invoke its jurisdiction. The Complainant appealed the ruling to this Court and we retained the matter. We affirm the ruling of the Court of Tax Review.

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF PARKER
2023 OK 50
Case Number: 119871
Decided: 05/02/2023

¶0 A dispute over the disposition of deceased individual’s estate arose between the Decedent’s adult children and his brother. Decedent left a holographic will, which the parties stipulated was valid. A provision in the will conferred a specific bequest of an expected worker’s compensation settlement to Decedent’s brother. After reviewing pleadings submitted by the parties and stipulations, the trial court determined the decedent’s holographic failed to intentionally omit his adult children, and therefore, they were deemed pretermitted heirs by operation of law. Additionally, the lower court concluded that as pretermitted heirs, the daughters were entitled to an intestate share of Decedent’s estate pursuant to 84 O.S.2011, § 132. Finally, the trial judge found that 84 O.S.2011, § 133 did not apply to the facts of this case. The Court of Civil Appeals, Division III affirmed the lower court’s decision and we granted certiorari to examine the interplay between 84 O.S.2011, § 132 and 84 O.S.2011, § 133.

IN THE MATTER OF S.J.W.
2023 OK 49
Case Number: 119404
Decided: 04/25/2023

¶0 The deprived adjudication of a Muscogee (Creek) Indian child domiciled in the Chickasaw Nation’s reservation results in concurrent state and tribal jurisdiction. 25 U.S.C. § 1911(b) (2018). Under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901 et seq., an Indian tribe has exclusive territorial jurisdiction over member Indian children domiciled within the external boundaries of their reservation. 25 U.S.C. § 1911(a). ICWA does not oust the State of its subject matter jurisdiction.

IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF L.B.L.
2023 OK 48
Case Number: 119316
Decided: 04/25/2023

¶0 Petitioners Lloyds sought to adopt minor child L.B.L. without Mother Sara Pollard’s consent. The District Court of Cherokee County, Judge Josh King, found that Child was eligible for adoption without Mother’s consent. Mother appealed, and the Court of Civil Appeals, Division 1, reversed the trial court. The LLoyds petitioned for writ of certiorari from this decision. We granted the petition for writ of certiorari, vacate the Court of Civil Appeals opinion, and affirm the trial court.

NORRIS v. POOL
2023 OK 47
Case Number: 118980
Decided: 04/25/2023

¶0 The appellees seek a declaratory judgment recognizing them as the primary beneficiaries of a retirement account belonging to the decedent, their cousin. The appellant, the son of the decedent, counterclaimed, seeking an order declaring him the sole beneficiary based on an executed change of beneficiary form received by the IRA custodian after the death of the decedent. The district court granted summary declaratory judgment in favor of the appellees and determined they are the beneficiaries of the retirement account. The decedent’s son timely appealed, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. This Court granted certiorari. We hold that the decedent substantially complied with the requirements of her IRA plan to change her beneficiary to her son, and the IRA funds should be disbursed per the decedent’s intent.

RE REVOCATION OF CREDENTIALS OF REGISTERED COURTROOM INTERPRETERS
2023 OK 46
Decided: 04/24/2023

This Court previously suspended the credentials of several Registered Courtroom Interpreters for failure to comply with the continuing education requirements for calendar year 2022 and/or with the annual credential renewal requirements for 2023. See 2023 OK 16 (SCAD 2023-18, dated February 21, 2023).

Under the applicable rules, a suspended certificate which has not been reinstated on or before April 15 shall be administratively revoked on that date. 20 O.S., Chapter 23, App. II, Rules 18(f) and 20(g). The Oklahoma Board of Examiners of Certified Courtroom Interpreters has advised that the interpreters listed in attached Exhibit A have not reinstated their credential as required by the rules, and the Board has recommended to this Court the revocation of the credential of each of these interpreters.

This Court hereby approves the Board’s recommendation of revocation of each of the Registered Courtroom Interpreters named below, and pursuant to the applicable rules such revocation shall be effective April 24, 2023.

RE REVOCATION OF CERTIFICATES OF CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
2023 OK 45
Decided: 04/24/2023

This Court previously suspended the certificates of several certified shorthand reporters for failure to comply with the continuing education requirements for calendar year 2022 and/or with the annual certificate renewal requirements for 2023. See 2023 OK 15 (SCAD 2023-17, dated February 21, 2023).

Under the applicable rules, a suspended certificate which has not been reinstated on or before April 15 shall be administratively revoked on that date. 20 O.S., Chapter 20, App. I, Rules 20(e) and 23(f). The Oklahoma Board of Examiners of Certified Shorthand Reporters has advised that the court reporters listed below have not reinstated their credential as required by the rules, and the Board has recommended to this Court the revocation of the certificate of each of these reporters.

The Court hereby approves the Board’s recommendation of revocation of each of the certified shorthand reporters named below, and pursuant to the applicable rules such revocation shall be effective April 24, 2023.

IN RE: AMENDMENT OF OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT RULE 1.4.
2023 OK 44
Decided: 04/17/2023

ORDER

¶1 The Court hereby amends Okla.Sup.Ct. Rule 1.4 as shown on the attached Exhibits A and B.

¶2 The amended rule shall be effective June 1, 2023.

IN RE AMENDMENT OF RULE 1.60, OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT RULES
2023 OK 43
Decided: 04/17/2023

ORDER

The Court hereby amendsRule 1.60, Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules, 12 O.S., ch. 15, app 1., as shown on the attached Exhibits A and B, effective immediately.

DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE THIS 17th DAY OF April, 2023.

SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORP. v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY CO. OF AMERICA
2023 OK 42
Case Number: 120197
Decided: 04/18/2023

¶0 Petitioners Schlumberger Technology Corp. and Travelers Indemnity Co. of America seek review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Commission finding Respondent Erasmo Paredes’s claim was timely filed and not barred by the statute of limitations. Paredes filed the claim less than one year from the date of the injury but more than six months after the date of the last payment of benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Commission determined that Paredes was not barred from filing his claim. We affirm.

IN RE AMENDMENT TO RULE 3 OF RULES FOR COURT OF TAX REVIEW
2023 OK 41
Decided: 04/17/2023

¶1 Rule 3 of the Oklahoma Court of Tax Review, Title 68, Ch. 1, art. 28, App, app.1, is hereby amended as shown on the attached Exhibit “A.” Rule 3, with the amended language noted, is attached as Exhibit “B.” The amended Rule is effective immediately.

RE REINSTATEMENT OF CREDENTIAL OF REGISTERED COURTROOM INTERPRETER
2023 OK 40
Decided: 04/17/2023

The Oklahoma Board of Examiners of Certified Courtroom Interpreters recommended to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma that the credential of the following interpreter:

Thao Nguyen-Pham

be reinstated, as all applicable fees have been paid and the interpreter has complied with the continuing education requirements for 2022 and annual certificate renewal requirements for 2023.

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. PARRIS
2023 OK 39
Case Number: SCBD-7234
Decided: 04/10/2023

¶1 On January 17, 2023, the Oklahoma Bar Association, notified the Court that the respondent, John Everett Parris, resigned from the Oklahoma Bar Association pending disciplinary proceedings. The disciplinary proceedings relate to six counts of ethical violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, 5 O.S. 2011, Ch. 1, app. 3-A, that he failed to: diligently represent clients; appear at court hearings; adequately communicate with clients; perform work for fees he charged; and was cited for contempt of court resulting in serving time in the county jail.¹

¶2 THE COURT FINDS:

1. The respondent has voluntarily resigned from the Oklahoma Bar Association by complying with Rule 8.1 and Rule 8.2, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S. 2021 Ch. 1, App. 1-A. The respondent’s affidavit of resignation reflects that: a) it was freely and voluntarily rendered; b) he was not subject to coercion or duress; and c) he was fully aware of the consequences of submitting the resignation.

2. The respondent states that he is aware of the Complaint filed in this Court on July 13, 2022, and the Amended Complaint filed on November 8, 2022 which contains six grievances against him.

3. The respondent states in his affidavit of resignation that he is aware that the allegations of conduct, if proven, would be a violation of Rules 1.1,1.2,1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15, 3.3, 8.4(a)-(d) of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, 5 O.S. 2021, Ch. 1, App. 3-A and Rules 1.3 and 5.2 of the Oklahoma Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S. 2021 Ch. 1, App. 1-A and of his oath as an attorney.

4. The respondent’s resignation pending disciplinary proceedings is in compliance with all of the requirements set forth in Rule 8.1, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S. 2021, Ch. 1, App. 1-A and it should be approved.

5. The official roster address of the respondent as shown by the Oklahoma Bar Association is: P.O. Box 1021, Sand Springs, OK 74063.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that John Everett Parris’s resignation pending discipline be approved.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that John Everett Parris’s name be stricken from the roll of attorneys. Because resignation pending disciplinary proceedings is tantamount to disbarment, the respondent may not make an application for reinstatement prior to the expiration of 5 years from the date of this order. Pursuant to Rule 9.1, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S. 2021, Ch. 1, App. 1-A, the respondent shall notify all of his clients having legal business pending with him within 20 days by certified mail of his inability to represent them and of the necessity for promptly retaining new counsel.

IN RE AMENDMENT OF RULE 10 RULES GOVERNING DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES
2023 OK 38
Decided: 04/10/2023

¶1 The Court hereby amends Rule 10, Rules Governing Disciplinary Procedures, (RGDP), 5 O.S. 2011, ch.1, app. 1-A, to include subsection 10.2A, as shown on the attached Exhibits A and B.

¶2 The amended rule shall be effective June 1, 2023.

IN RE AMENDMENT OF RULE 6.2A RULES GOVERNING DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES
2023 OK 37
Decided: 04/10/2023

¶1 The Court hereby amends Rule 6.2A, Rules Governing Disciplinary Procedures, (RGDP), 5 O.S. 2011, ch.1, app. 1-A, as shown on the attached Exhibits A and B.

¶2 The amended rule shall be effective June 1, 2023.

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. JEFFERSON
2023 OK 36
Case Number: SCBD-7184
Decided: 04/03/2023

¶1 On March 23, 2023, the Oklahoma Bar Association (Bar Association), notified the Court that the respondent, William Shawn Jefferson (Attorney/respondent), resigned from the Oklahoma Bar Association pending disciplinary proceedings. The disciplinary proceedings relate to six counts of alleged ethical violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, 5 O.S. 2011, Ch. 1, app. 3-A, that he failed to: diligently represent clients; appear at court hearings; adequately communicate with clients and the Bar Association; account for and/or refund unearned fees; and perform work for fees he charged; and cooperate with the Bar Association’s investigation or respond regarding the clients’ complaints.

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. LUNDAY
2023 OK 35
Case Number: SCBD-7417
Decided: 04/03/2023

¶1 On March 9, 2023, the Oklahoma Bar Association (Bar Association), notified the Court that the respondent, Michael Dwaine Lunday (Attorney/respondent), resigned from the Oklahoma Bar Association pending disciplinary proceedings. The disciplinary proceedings relate to his arrest for allegations involving lewd acts with a minor and soliciting child prostitution.

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. BAILEY
2023 OK 34
Case Number: SCBD-6776
Decided: 04/04/2023

¶0 Respondent is an attorney licensed to practice law as a member of the Oklahoma Bar Association. The Oklahoma Bar Association’s Second Amended Complaint against respondent alleged eight counts of professional misconduct. A hearing was held before a trial panel of the Professional Responsibility Tribunal. The panel found the allegations on all counts to be established and recommended respondent be suspended for the practice of law for two years and one day. We hold: The evidence is clear and convincing respondent violated several provisions of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct and Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, and the proper discipline is to disbar respondent and order him to pay the costs of the proceeding.

OKLA. GAS AND ELECTRIC CO. v. STATE ex rel. OKLA. CORPORATION COMMISSION
2023 OK 33
Case Number: 117896
Decided: 04/04/2023

¶0 In 2018, ONEOK Arbuckle II Pipeline, LLC began construction of a natural gas liquid pipeline to transport Oklahoma production to the interstate market. The pipeline required electricity to operate a series of pump stations, including the Binger II Pump Station. The location for the proposed Binger II was in the certified territory of CKenergy Electric Cooperative, Inc., which has exclusive rights to provide electricity in the area pursuant to the Retail Electric Supplier Certified Territory Act codified at 17 O.S. 2011, § 158.21 et seq. Relying on the large-load exception to the RESCTA, 17 O.S. 2011, § 158.25(E), OG&E submitted a bid to provide service to the Binger II, which ONEOK accepted, and the parties contracted for service. CKenergy appealed this contract to the Oklahoma Corporation Commission asserting that it was a violation of its exclusive rights under the RESCTA. The Commission subsequently enjoined OG&E’s service, concluding that the meaning of “extending its service”in section 158.25(E) limits the manner or mechanism which OG&E may utilize to provide service under the large-load exception. OG&E and ONEOK appealed, we retained both appeals, and consolidated the cases. We hold that section 158.25(E) allows OG&E to extend its service to large loads in the manner proposed. Therefore, the Commission’s order enjoining OG&E is vacated and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. MORTENSEN
2023 OK 32
Case Number: SCBD-7095
Decided: 04/04/2023

¶0 Complainant, State of Oklahoma ex rel.Oklahoma Bar Association, charged Respondent, Thomas A. Mortensen, with eight counts of professional misconduct including failure to competently and diligently represent his clients, failure to communicate, collecting an unreasonable fee, mishandling client property, engaging in dishonest conduct, and commission of an act contrary to prescribed standards of conduct. The Tribunal recommended Respondent be suspended for two years and one day. We hold there is clear and convincing evidence that the totality of Respondent’s conduct warrants disbarment. Respondent is ordered to pay the costs as herein provided within ninety days after this opinion becomes final.

RE REINSTATEMENT OF CREDENTIAL OF REGISTERED COURTROOM INTERPRETER
2023 OK 31
Decided: 04/03/2023

The Oklahoma Board of Examiners of Certified Courtroom Interpreters recommended to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma that the credential of the following interpreter:

Gisele Jones

be reinstated, as all applicable fees have been paid and the interpreter has complied with the continuing education requirements for 2022 and annual certificate renewal requirements for 2023.

RE REINSTATEMENT OF CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
2023 OK 30
Decided: 04/03/2023

The Oklahoma Board of Examiners of Certified Shorthand Reporters recommended to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma that the certificate of each of the Oklahoma Certified Shorthand Reporters named below be reinstated as they have complied with the continuing education requirements for 2022 and annual certificate renewal requirements for 2023 and have paid all applicable fees.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED pursuant to 20 O.S., Chapter 20, App. l, Rules 20 and 23, the certificates of the following shorthand reporters are reinstated from the suspension earlier imposed by this Court:

Name CSR # Effective Date of Reinstatement
Kayla Carlock #1381 March 16, 2023
Mignon Elise Cruchon #1566 March 3, 2023

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. GLAPION
2023 OK 29
Case Number: SCBD-7280
Decided: 03/28/2023

¶0 The complainant, Oklahoma Bar Association, charged the respondent, Raphael Thomas Glapion, with one count of professional misconduct stemming from incompetent advice, failure to safekeep and timely account for a client’s funds, failure to preserve evidence, and neglect and delay of the client’s claims. The Professional Responsibility Tribunal recommended that the respondent be disbarred and costs imposed. Upon de novo review we hold that the respondent’s license to practice law is suspended for two years and one day. The respondent is assessed costs in the sum of $1,731.28 for payment not later than ninety days after this opinion becomes final.

IN RE AMENDMENT OF OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT, RULE 1.20 AND 1.22
2023 OK 28
Decided: 03/27/2023

¶1 The Court hereby amends Oklahoma Supreme Court Rule 1.20 and Oklahoma Supreme Court Rule 1.22, 12 O.S., ch. 15, app 1., as shown on the attached Exhibits A and B, effective immediately.

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. CLARK
2023 OK 27
Case Number: SCBD-7291
Decided: 03/28/2023

¶0 Complainant, State of Oklahoma ex rel.Oklahoma Bar Association, charged Respondent, Kimberly N. Clark, with eight counts of professional misconduct. The Trial Panel recommended Respondent be suspended for two years and one day. We hold there is clear and convincing evidence that the totality of Respondent’s conduct warrants disbarment. Respondent is ordered to pay the costs as herein provided within ninety days after this opinion becomes final.

SHELLEM v. GRUNEWELD
2023 OK 26
Case Number: 120131
Decided: 03/28/2023

¶0 Parents, individually, and on behalf of their minor children, filed a Petition for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief and an Application for Temporary Restraining Order requesting the trial court enjoin Edmond Public School District from enforcing its quarantine policy. The quarantine policy required unvaccinated students who have not tested positive for COVID-19 within ninety days and who are identified as a close contact to quarantine for either seven or ten days; whereas vaccinated students who are identified as a close contact are not required to quarantine. The trial court denied the parents’ Temporary Restraining Order, but granted a Temporary Injunction on the basis that the parents established the quarantine policy likely violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Edmond Public School District appealed and we retained the matter. We vacate the trial court’s order and grant declaratory relief.

IN THE MATTER OF THE REINSTATEMENT OF MADDEN
2023 OK 25
Case Number: SCBD-7288
Decided: 03/20/2023
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

ORDER

¶1 The petitioner, Lisa Gold Madden, voluntarily resigned from the Oklahoma Bar Association on or about October 30, 2014. On July 25, 2022, Madden petitioned this Court for reinstatement as a member of the OBA. A hearing was held before the Professional Responsibility Tribunal, and the panel recommended that Madden be reinstated. Upon consideration of the matter, we find:

1) The attorney has met all the procedural requirements necessary for reinstatement in the Oklahoma Bar Association as set out in Rules 11, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S. 2021, ch.1, app. 1-A.
2) The attorney has established by clear and convincing evidence that she has not engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in the State of Oklahoma.
3) The attorney has established by clear and convincing evidence that she possesses the competency and learning in the law required for reinstatement to the Oklahoma Bar Association.
4) The attorney has established by clear and convincing evidence that she possesses the good moral character which would entitle her to be reinstated to the Oklahoma Bar Association.

OKLAHOMA CALL FOR REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE v. DRUMMOND
2023 OK 24
Case Number: 120543
Decided: 03/21/2023
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

OKLAHOMA CALL FOR REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE, on behalf of itself and its members; TULSA WOMEN’S REPRODUCTIVE CLINIC, LLC, on behalf of itself, its physicians, its staff, and its patients; ALAN BRAID, M.D., on behalf of himself and his patients; COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD GREAT PLAINS, INC., on behalf of itself, its physicians, its staff, and its patients; and PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF ARKANSAS & EASTERN OKLAHOMA, on behalf of itself, its physicians, its staff, and its patients, Petitioners,
v.
GENTNER DRUMMOND, in his official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma; VICKI BEHENNA, in her official capacity as District Attorney for Oklahoma County; STEVE KUNZWEILER, in his official capacity as District Attorney for Tulsa County; LYLE KELSEY, in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Oklahoma State Board of Medical Licensure and Supervision; BRET S. LANGERMAN, in his official capacity as President of the Oklahoma State Board of Osteopathic Examiners; KEITH REED, in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the Oklahoma State Board of Health, Respondents.

APPLICATION TO ASSUME ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND/OR A WRIT OF
PROHIBITION

¶0 The Petitioners filed an application to assume original jurisdiction seeking declaratory relief and to enjoin enforcement of two laws which criminalize abortion. They assert the laws are unconstitutional and the Oklahoma Constitution protects a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy. We hold there is a limited right to terminate a pregnancy that is protected by the Oklahoma Constitution. We assume original jurisdiction, grant declaratory relief in part and deny injunctive relief and writ of prohibition.

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. MCCOY
2023 OK 23
Case Number: SCBD-7414
Decided: 03/20/2023
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

¶1 The Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA), in compliance with Rules 7.1 and 7.2 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), forwarded to this Court certified copies of the Sentence Order, Order: Report to Court, County Court Plea Agreement, and Information, in the criminal matter of State of Colorado v. McCoy, Kassie Nicole, Case No. 2022T966, in the District Court of Mesa County, State of Colorado.¹ On August 30, 2022, Kassie Nicole McCoy entered a plea of Guilty to the misdemeanor crime of Driving Under the Influence (1^st), Colorado Code 42-4-1301(1)(a), committed on the 8^th day of April, 2022. The Colorado Court accepted Respondent’s Guilty plea and sentenced Respondent to a 14 day suspended jail sentence, 12 months of probation, 48 hours of public service, an alcohol evaluation, restitution to the Grand Junction Police Department, and participation in MADD Victim Impact Panel. The OBA received certified copies of the papers and Exhibits 1-4 from the Mesa County District Court on February 21, 2023.

CHIMENTO v. GALLAGHER BENEFIT SERVICES
2023 OK 22
Case Number: 120089; Cons. w/120101
Decided: 03/21/2023
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

¶0 In the underlying lawsuit, Plaintiff, Sue Chimento, brought claims for defamation, negligence, intentional interference with business relations, false representation, constructive fraud, and conspiracy against Defendants, Gallagher Benefit Services, Inc., and Scott McCoy, based on allegations they made to the Tulsa Police Department, Tulsa County District Attorney’s Office, and the Oklahoma Insurance Department that she had embezzled money while under their employment. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to Defendants, finding that their statements to the police and district attorney were subject to an absolute privilege and their statements to Oklahoma Insurance Department were subject to a qualified privilege under 36 O.S. § 363. The trial court certified its order granting partial summary judgment for interlocutory review. We hold that Defendants’ statements to the police, the district attorney, and the Oklahoma Insurance Department are afforded a qualified privilege.

IN RE AMENDMENT TO OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT RULE 1.200
2023 OK 21
Decided: 03/06/2023
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

ORDER
¶1 Oklahoma Supreme Court Rule 1.200 is hereby amended as shown on the attached Exhibits A and B. The amended rule shall be effective immediately.

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. SHYERS
2023 OK 20
Case Number: SCBD-7212
Decided: 03/07/2023
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

¶0 Pursuant to Rule 7 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, this summary disciplinary proceeding arises from Respondent’s pleas of guilty to four misdemeanor charges for actual physical control of a vehicle while in possession of two controlled substances and drug paraphernalia. This Court issued an Order of Immediate Interim Suspension of Respondent’s license to practice law. Respondent waived a hearing before the Professional Responsibility Tribunal. The Oklahoma Bar Association recommended that Respondent be suspended for one year. We hold that Respondent’s conduct warrants a suspension conditioned upon his successful completion of his deferred sentence on January 27, 2024, including meeting the financial obligations and other requirements of his probation.

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. LIPE
2023 OK 19
Case Number: SCBD-7416
Decided: 03/06/2023
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

¶1 On January 26, 2023, Complainant, the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA), filed a verified complaint against Respondent, Melissa Ann Lipe, pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP) 5 O.S.2011, ch. 1, app. 1-A. With the concurrence of the Professional Responsibility Commission, the OBA requests an emergency interim suspension of Respondent from the practice of law pursuant to Rule 6.2A of the RGDP.

¶2 The complaint alleges Respondent is currently suspended by Order of the Oklahoma Supreme Court for noncompliance with her mandatory continuing legal education (“MCLE”) requirements (per SCBD No. 7260) and for non payment of dues (per SCBD No. 7261); effective June 6, 2022.

IN THE MATTER OF THE REINSTATEMENT OF MCCUTCHEON
2023 OK 18
Case Number: SCBD-7317
Decided: 02/28/2023

¶0 Petitioner seeks reinstatement to the Oklahoma Bar Association after the Bar suspended her license for non-compliance with MCLE and non-payment of dues. The Trial Panel of the Professional Responsibility Tribunal unanimously recommended Petitioner for reinstatement. The Bar supports this recommendation. Upon de novo review we hold that Petitioner has met all requirements for reinstatement to the Oklahoma Bar Association.

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. ADIBI
2023 OK 17
Case Number: SCBD-7400
Decided: 02/21/2023

¶1 Upon consideration of (1) Respondent’s Affidavit, prepared in compliance with Rule 8.1, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), 5 O.S.2011, ch. 1, app. 1-A, in which Respondent, Arya Affeldt Adibi, requests that he be allowed to relinquish his license to practice law and to resign from membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association, and (2) Complainant’s Application for Order Approving Resignation,

¶2 THE COURT FINDS AND HOLDS:

¶3 During the pendency of disciplinary proceedings against him, Arya Affeldt Adibi offered, on February 1, 2023, to surrender his license to practice law and to resign from Bar membership.

¶4 Respondent’s act of surrender and resignation was freely and voluntarily made without coercion or duress.

¶5 Respondent is fully aware of the legal consequences that will flow from his resignation.

¶6 Respondent is aware of pending investigations by the Bar’s General Counsel into grievances made against him. Respondent is aware that a Formal Complaint was filed against him and is currently pending before the Oklahoma Supreme Court, alleging violations of professional duties and the oath of an attorney. If proven, these grievances would constitute violations of Rules 1.3 and 7.1, RGDP, and Rule 8.4(b) of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct (ORPC) 5 O.S. 2011, ch.1, app. 3-A, and Respondent’s oath as a licensed Oklahoma lawyer.

…

¶24 THE COURT THEREFORE ORDERS THAT the resignation of Arya Affeldt Adibi tendered during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings is approved; the Respondent’s name is stricken from the Roll of Attorneys and he may not apply for reinstatement of his license to practice law (and of his membership in the Bar) before the lapse of five years from the date of this order; repayment to the Client Security Fund for any money disbursed (or to be disbursed) because of Respondent’s conduct shall be a condition of Respondent’s reinstatement; Respondent shall comply with Rule 9.1, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), 5 O.S.2011, ch. 1, app. 1-A.

¶25 It is further ordered that the Respondent pay costs in the amount of $6,095.77 within thirty days from the date of this Order. Any consideration of any future Rule 11 petitions is conditioned upon such payment.

RE SUSPENSION OF CREDENTIALS OF CERTIFIED AND REGISTERED COURTROOM INTERPRETERS
2023 OK 16
Decided: 02/21/2023

The Oklahoma Board of Examiners of Certified Courtroom Interpreters has recommended to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma the suspension of the credentials of each of the Oklahoma Registered Courtroom Interpreters listed on the attached Exhibit for failure to comply with the annual renewal requirements for 2023.

Pursuant to 20 O.S., Chapter 23, App. II, Rule 18(c), failure to satisfy the annual renewal requirements on or before February 15 shall result in administrative suspension on that date.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the credentials of each of the interpreters named on the attached Exhibit is hereby suspended effective February 21, 2023.

RE SUSPENSION OF CERTIFICATES OF CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
2023 OK 15
Decided: 02/21/2023

The Oklahoma Board of Examiners of Certified Shorthand Reporters has recommended to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma the suspension of the certificate of each of the Oklahoma Certified Shorthand Court Reporters listed on the attached Exhibit for failure to comply with the annual renewal requirements for 2023.

Pursuant to 20 O.S., Chapter 20, App. 1, Rules 20(c) and 23(d), failure to satisfy the annual renewal requirements on or before February 15 shall result in administrative suspension on that date.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the certificate of each of the court reporters named on the attached Exhibit is hereby suspended effective February 21, 2023.

MEGEE v. EL PATIO
2023 OK 14
Case Number: 119449
Decided: 02/14/2023

¶0 Plaintiff/Appellant Nancy Carol MeGee, as Personal Representative of and on behalf of the Estate of David Anthony MeGee, brought a wrongful death action against Defendants/Appellees El Patio, LLC and Dylan Scott Welch. Personal Representative alleges that Welch and other employees of El Patio over-served alcoholic beverages to David Anthony MeGee and then bet him $200 to drive from Weatherford, Oklahoma, to Oklahoma City. MeGee died in a motor vehicle accident on his way to Oklahoma City. The trial court granted El Patio and Welch’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Personal Representative appealed. We reaffirm our holding in Ohio Casualty Insurance Co. v. Todd, 1991 OK 54, 813 P.2d 508, that a voluntarily intoxicated adult does not have a cause of action against a commercial vendor for personal injuries or death resulting from his own intoxication. We also hold that, regardless of the sale of alcohol, an intoxicated adult who accepts a bet to drive a motor vehicle and is injured as a result of his own intoxication does not have a cause of action against the bettor.

TRES C v. RAKER RESOURCES
2023 OK 13
Case Number: 118650
Decided: 02/14/2023

¶0 This appeal concerns the trial court’s judgment after a bench trial that granted Plaintiff/Respondent’s petition to cancel Defendants/Petitioners’ oil and gas lease and to quiet title in its favor so that a third party can exercise the option of executing a new lease. The Court of Civil Appeals conditionally affirmed the trial court’s judgment, but remanded the matter with instructions to address the noncontractual defense of obstructions, which is set forth in Jones v. Moore, 1959 OK 23, ¶ 0, 338 P.2d 872, 873. We granted certiorari to address whether the trial court erred in applying a rule of law that analyzed only a 3-month window of time for assessing whether a dip in the existing well’s production was a cessation of production in paying quantities such that Defendants/Petitioner’s lease expired by its own terms. On de novo review, we find that the trial court did err insofar as it relied upon the lease’s cessation-of-production clause to define the time period for assessing profitability. We vacate the Court of Civil Appeals’ opinion, reverse the trial court’s judgment, quiet title in favor of Defendants/Petitioners, and remand the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

OWENS v. OWENS
2023 OK 12
Case Number: 119920
Decided: 02/14/2023
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

¶0 In this divorce proceeding, Wife (Respondent/Appellant) appeals the property division incorporated into the divorce decree. The parties initially agreed to a settlement after mediation, but Wife later changed her mind. Husband (Petitioner/Appellee) moved to enforce the settlement agreement, and the trial court held a hearing on the request. The trial court’s divorce decree divided property between the parties based on information provided at the settlement conference and the hearing. Wife contended that the court’s property division was unfair, and she appealed. This Court questioned the timeliness of Wife’s appeal but allowed the appeal to proceed, reserving consideration of the timeliness issue until the decisional stage. We hold that Wife’s appeal of the trial court’s judgment was timely, and that the property division reached by the trial court was fair, just, and reasonable.

KPIELE-PODA v. PATTERSON-UTI ENERGY
2023 OK 11
Case Number: 119375; Consol. w/119406
Decided: 02/14/2023

¶0 Employee was injured at a wellsite in Kingfisher County while repairing a conveyor that activated and crushed his legs. While Employee’s Workers’ Compensation claim was still pending, he filed a petition asserting negligence and products liability in the District Court of Oklahoma County against his employers, two wellsite operators, and the manufacturers and distributors of the conveyor. Ovintiv Mid-Continent, Inc. was named in the body of the petition but omitted from the caption. After the statute of limitations period expired, Employee amended his petition to add Ovintiv Mid-Continent, Inc. as a defendant in the petition’s caption. A second amended petition added other parties. Ovintiv Mid-Continent, Inc. moved to dismiss arguing the claim was time-barred because the amended petition did not relate back to the first petition. Employee’s employers also moved to dismiss arguing the Administrative Workers’ Compensation Act and Oklahoma precedent preclude employees from simultaneously maintaining an action before the Workers’ Compensation Commission and in the district court. The district court granted each dismissal motion and certified each order as appealable pursuant to 12 O.S.2011, § 994(A). We retained and consolidated Employee’s separate appeals. We hold: 1) the district court erred when it dismissed Employee’s action against Ovintiv Mid-Continent, Inc. as time-barred; and 2) the district court properly dismissed Employee’s intentional tort action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

IN RE AMENDMENT OF RULE 2 OF RULES GOVERNING ADMISSION TO THE PRACTICE OF LAW
2023 OK 10
Case Number: SCBD-7385
Decided: 02/07/2023
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

In Re: Amendment of Rule Two of the Rules Governing Admission to the Practice of Law, 5 O.S. 2011, Ch. 1, App. 5

ORDER AMENDING RULES GOVERNING
ADMISSION TO THE PRACTICE OF LAW

This matter comes on before this Court upon an Application to Amend Rule Two of the Rules Governing Admission to the Practice of Law, 5 O.S. 2011, Ch. 1, App. 5, §1. This Court finds that it has jurisdiction over this matter and Rule 2 is hereby amended as set out in Exhibit A attached hereto effective immediately.

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. CAMPBELL
2023 OK 9
Decided: 02/06/2023
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

¶1 On January 11, 2023, Complainant, the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA), filed a verified complaint against Respondent Debra Campbell pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP) 5 O.S.2011, ch. 1, app. 1-A. With the concurrence of the Professional Responsibility Commission, the OBA requests an emergency interim suspension of Respondent from the practice of law pursuant to Rule 6.2A of the RGDP.

¶2 In support, the OBA reports that it has received sufficient evidence demonstrating Respondent has committed conduct in violation of Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15, 1.16, 3.3, and 8.4(a)(b)(c) and (d) of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, and Rule 1.3 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, and that the conduct poses an immediate threat of substantial and irreparable public harm.

. . .

¶7 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Respondent, Debra Campbell, is immediately suspended from the practice of law, pursuant to Rule 6.2A of the RGDP.

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. ETHERINGTON
2023 OK 8
Case Number: SCBD-7383
Decided: 02/06/2023
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

¶1 On December 20, 2022, Complainant, the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA), filed a verified complaint against Respondent Kevin D. Etherington pursuant to Rule 6.2A of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP) 5 O.S.2011, ch. 1, app. 1-A. On January 20, 2023, the OBA filed an amended verified complaint against Respondent pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP) 5 O.S.2011, ch. 1, app. 1-A. With the concurrence of the Professional Responsibility Commission, the OBA requests an emergency interim suspension of Respondent from the practice of law pursuant to Rule 6.2A of the RGDP.

¶2 In support, the OBA reports that it has received sufficient evidence demonstrating Respondent has committed conduct in violation of Rules 1.1 and 8.4(a)(b) and (d) of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, and Rule 1.3 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, and that the conduct poses an immediate threat of substantial and irreparable public harm.

. . .

¶11 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Respondent, Kevin D. Etherington, is immediately suspended from the practice of law, pursuant to Rule 6.2A of the RGDP.

GRAY v. FIDELITY BROKERAGE SERVICES
2023 OK 7
Case Number: 119317
Decided: 02/07/2023
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

¶0 Appellants seek a declaratory judgment, recognizing them as the primary beneficiaries of a profit-sharing plan and a retirement account belonging to the decedent, their father, pursuant to an antenuptial agreement and beneficiary designations. Appellee, the wife of the decedent, counterclaimed, seeking an order declaring her the sole beneficiary based on the order of succession. The district court granted summary declaratory judgment in favor of the wife, determining she was the sole beneficiary of both accounts. The decedent’s children timely appealed, and the Court of Civil Appeals reversed and remanded with instructions. This Court granted certiorari. We hold that the decedent had exclusive rights to the profit-sharing plan per the antenuptial agreement, including the right to roll over its assets to a retirement account. Further, the Court reforms the beneficiary designations to disburse the retirement account funds per Decedent’s intent. However, the remaining assets in the profit-sharing plan should be distributed per the plan’s beneficiary designation.

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. WALKER
2023 OK 6
Case Number: SCBD-6960; Cons. w/SCBD 7327
Decided: 01/30/2023
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

¶1 The State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association (Complainant) has presented this Court with an application to approve the resignation of Kenneth Shane Walker (Respondent) from membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA No. 19628). Respondent wishes to resign pending disciplinary proceedings and investigation into alleged misconduct, as provided in Rule 8.1 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), 5 O.S. 2021, ch. 1, app. 1-A.

IN RE AMENDMENT OF RULES OF OK. SUP. CT. (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CT.)
2023 OK 5
Decided: 01/23/2023
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

¶1 Rules 1.4, 1.10, 1.25, 1.76, 1.77, 1.100, 1.101, 1.102, 1.103, 1.105, 1.106, 1.193, and 1.300, and Forms 9, 10, 15, 17 of Rule 1.301, of the Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules, Okla. Stat. tit. 12, ch. 15, app. 1, is hereby amended as shown on the attached Exhibit “A”. The Rules with the amended language noted is attached as Exhibit “B.” The remainder of the Rules are unaffected by the amendments. The amended Rules are effective as of January 23, 2023.

MUSCOGEE (CREEK) NATION v. LEXINGTON INSURANCE CO.
2023 OK 4
Case Number: 119701; Comp w/119359; 119413
Decided: 01/23/2023
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

¶1 Rule 1.201 of the Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules provides that “[i]n any case in which it appears that a prior controlling appellate decision is dispositive of the appeal, the Court may summarily affirm or reverse, citing in its order of summary disposition this rule and the controlling decision.” Okla. Sup. Ct. Rule 1.201, 12 O.S.2021, ch. 15, app. 1.

¶2 On July 12, 2021, this Court designated this case, Cherokee Nation v. Lexington Insurance Company (Case No. 119,359), 2022 OK 71, and Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma v. Lexington Insurance Company (Case No. 119,413) as companion cases. The sole issue in each of the companion cases is whether the district court correctly determined that business interruption coverage for the insured’s losses “caused by direct physical loss or damage . . . to real and/or personal property” includes losses incurred by some intangible harm that rendered the insured’s property unusable for its intended purpose.

¶3 THE COURT FINDS that our decision in Cherokee Nation v. Lexington Insurance Company, 2022 OK 71, involves the same primary legal question as that in the above-styled appeal. Therefore, our holding in Cherokee Nation that the policy language “direct physical loss or damage . . . to real and/or personal property” requires immediate, actual or tangible deprivation or destruction of property disposes of the issues herein. Muscogee (Creek) Nation does not present any evidence that its property was tangibly damaged, and the policy at issue does not cover its alleged business interruption losses.

¶4 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the district court’s order sustaining the Muscogee (Creek) Nation’s motion for partial summary judgment on business interruption coverage is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.

CHOCTAW NATION v. LEXINGTON INSURANCE CO.
2023 OK 3
Case Number: 119413; Comp w/119359; 119701
Decided: 01/23/2023
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

¶2 On July 12, 2021, this Court designated this case, Cherokee Nation v. Lexington Insurance Company (Case No. 119,359), 2022 OK 71, and Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Lexington Insurance Company (Case No. 119,701) as companion cases. The sole issue in each of the companion cases is whether the district court correctly determined that business interruption coverage for the insured’s losses “caused by direct physical loss or damage . . . to real and/or personal property” includes losses incurred by some intangible harm that rendered the insured’s property unusable for its intended purpose.

¶3 THE COURT FINDS that our decision in Cherokee Nation v. Lexington Insurance Company, 2022 OK 71, involves the same primary legal question as that in the above-styled appeal. Therefore, our holding in Cherokee Nation that the policy language “direct physical loss or damage . . . to real and/or personal property” requires immediate, actual or tangible deprivation or destruction of property disposes of the issues herein. Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma does not present any evidence that its property was tangibly damaged, and the policy at issue does not cover its alleged business interruption losses.

¶4 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the district court’s order sustaining Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma’s motion for partial summary judgment on business interruption coverage is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. KRIGEL
2023 OK 2
Case Number: SCBD-7393
Decided: 01/17/2023
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

¶1 On December 21, 2022, Complainant, the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA), filed a verified complaint against Respondent Jeffrey Price Krigel pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP) 5 O.S.2011, ch. 1, app. 1-A. With the concurrence of the Professional Responsibility Commission, the OBA requests an emergency interim suspension of Respondent from the practice of law pursuant to Rule 6.2A of the RGDP.

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. WRIGHT
2023 OK 1
Case Number: SCBD-7318
Decided: 01/18/2023
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

¶0 The Oklahoma Bar Association initiated summary disciplinary proceedings against Respondent pursuant to Rules 7.2 and 7.7 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings after he was disbarred by the Florida State Bar. Respondent has not provided any response or evidence to mitigate the severity of discipline. The Bar recommended the appropriate discipline was the same as that rendered in Florida, disbarment. After de novo review, this Court finds that Respondent is guilty of misconduct and the appropriate discipline is disbarment.

Posted in Supreme Court of Oklahoma and tagged Booth, Courts & More, General Counsel, Home Depot, oscn, Supreme Court of Oklahoma, Tenth Circuit