Supreme Court of Oklahoma | January 26, 2022
Decisions
RICKARD v. COULIMORE
2022 OK 9
Case Number: 118503
Decided: 01/25/2022
¶0 Defendants/Petitioners Jonathan P. Coulimore and Elinor Coulimore created the Coulimore Family Living Trust, U/A/D March 6, 2014 (“the Coulimore Trust”). The Coulimore Trust is a revocable trust, and the Coulimores are the settlors, trustees, and beneficiaries. The Coulimore Trust owned the subject real property, but the Coulimores never occupied it. The Coulimores sold the property to Plaintiff/Respondent Keely D. Rickard. Rickard later sued the Coulimores, individually and as Trustees of the Coulimore Trust, for failure to disclose defects in the property. We previously granted certiorari to review a certified interlocutory order to determine whether the real property transaction is exempt from the Residential Property Condition Disclosure Act (RPCDA), pursuant to 60 O.S.2011 § 838(A)(3). We hold the transaction is exempt from the RPCDA. The order of the district court is affirmed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
IN THE MATTER OF THE REINSTATEMENT OF MORGAN
2022 OK 8
Case Number: SCBD-6981
Decided: 01/24/2022
ORDER FOR REINSTATEMENT
On February 7, 2013, Petitioner, Michael Steven Morgan, was subjected to an immediate interim suspension in State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Morgan, SCBD No. 5964 (Okla. filed Jan. 30, 2013), after this Court received notice that he was convicted on one count of Theft or Bribery in Programs Receiving Federal Funds in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) in the case of United States v. Morgan, No. 5:11-cr-00108-C (W.D. Okla. filed Mar. 30, 2011).1 The imposition of final discipline was postponed during the pendency of Petitioner’s appeal of this conviction.2 After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed his conviction, Petitioner obtained this Court’s approval to resign pending disciplinary proceedings on August 2, 2016.3 But the Court deemed his resignation effective as of February 7, 2013–meaning he would be eligible to apply for reinstatement as early as February 7, 2018.4
STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. STEAD
2022 OK 7
Case Number: SCBD-7194
Decided: 01/18/2022
¶1 On December 9, 2021, the Complainant, Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA), filed a verified complaint against the respondent, Robin Gay Stead, pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), 5 O.S.2011, ch. 1, app. 1-A. The OBA, with the concurrence of the Professional Responsibility Commission, requests an emergency interim suspension of Respondent from the practice of law pursuant to Rule 6.2A of the RGDP and an order to preserve the funds in her client trust account.
McKESSON CORP. v. CAMPBELL
2022 OK 6
Case Number: 120033
Decided: 01/18/2022
As Corrected: January 19, 2022
¶1 Petitioner McKesson Corporation seeks production of deidentified data held in the repository created by Oklahoma’s Anti-Drug Diversion Act, the Prescription Monitoring Program. See 63 O.S.2021, § 2-309D(A). Petitioner’s discovery requests arise out of the negligence and public nuisance action brought by Real Party in Interest Attorney General of Oklahoma in Bryan County District Court. See State of Oklahoma ex rel. Attorney General of Oklahoma v. McKesson Corporation, No. CJ-2020-84 (Bryan Cnty. District Court). The Bryan County District Court issued an order on October 22, 2021, sustaining the Attorney General’s objection to production of the Prescription Monitoring Program data, reasoning that as the statute made the data confidential and Petitioner was not included on the statute’s list of authorized accessors, Petitioner was not entitled to discover the information. Petitioner then sought relief from this Court.
ROCKET PROPERTIES v. LaFORTUNE
2022 OK 5
Case Number: 120000
Decided: 01/18/2022
¶1 Original jurisdiction is assumed in the cause now pending before the Tulsa County District Court, Case No. CJ-2018-620. Fent v. Contingency Review Bd., 2007 OK 27, ¶11, 163 P.3d 512 (the Court may assume jurisdiction in a publici juris controversy where there is an urgency and need for a judicial determination).
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE CO. v. POPE
2022 OK 4, 119309
Decided 01/11/2022
¶0 Insurer sought a declaratory judgment in the District Court of Tulsa County for the purpose of adjudicating whether its insurance policy excluded treble damages pursuant to 47 O.S.2011, § 10-103 . Insurer filed a motion for summary judgment, and the Honorable J. Doug Drummond, District Judge, concluded the treble damages provided by 47 O.S. 2011, § 10-103 were punitive in nature, and the damages were excluded by a clause excluding punitive damages. Injured motorist appealed the subsequent consent judgment which was based, in part, upon the trial court’s adjudication of the treble damages issue. The Supreme Court retained the appeal sua sponte . We hold: Statutory treble damages in 47 O.S.2011, § 10-103 are punitive in nature and punitive damages were expressly excluded by the policy.
STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. LANCE
2022 OK 3, SCBD-7183
Decided 01/10/2022
¶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 Informations, Probable Cause Affidavits, Pleas, Judgment and Sentence, and Order Deferring Imposition of Judgment and Sentence, in the matters of State of Oklahoma v. Lance Timothy Lance, in cases CM-2020-56, CM-2020-192, CM-2021-206, and CM-2021-224, all in Murray County, Oklahoma. Following pleas of no contest on all counts in all the cases, in CM-2020-56, the Court entered a sentence of one year with all but 90 days of the sentence suspended for the misdemeanor crime of Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants in violation of 47 O.S. § 11-902 (A)(4). In cases CM-2020-192, CM-2020-206, and CM-2021-224, the Court deferred sentencing for 5 years, except for 90 days to be served in jail, for each case and count, for the following crimes:
STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. ROLLER
2022 OK 2, SCBD-6907
Decided 01/10/2022
¶1 Before this Court is (1) the affidavit of Respondent Michelle Ann Roller filed pursuant to Rule 8.1 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), 5 O.S.2011, ch. 1, app. 1-A, requesting that this Court allow her to resign her membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA) and relinquish her right to practice law, (2) the OBA’s Application for Order Approving Resignation Pending Disciplinary Proceedings, and (3) the OBA’s Application to Assess Costs.
STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. SCOTT
2022 OK 1, SCBD-7035
Decided 01/11/2022
¶0 Complainant, State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association, charged Respondent, Robert Carlyle Scott, with two counts of professional misconduct including failure to diligently represent his clients, failure to communicate, failure to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority, commission of an act contrary to prescribed standards of conduct, and failure to timely respond to a grievance. The Trial Panel recommended that 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.