OK CIV APP ___ (2024)
Slip opinions decided 2024 — Oklahoma Civil Appeals
These decisions have not yet been assigned a bound volume and page in Oklahoma Civil Appeals. Each case lives at a name-based URL and moves to its citation URL (with a redirect) the moment the official citation is assigned.
17 opinions
- 2024 OK CIV APP 2BUTTERFIELD v. TRUSTEE OF MCCOY REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST (2023)
- 2024 OK CIV APP 3CARTER v. PENDLEY (2023)
- 2024 OK CIV APP 5ONDOBO v. INTEGRIS BAPTIST MEDICAL CENTER (2023)
- 2024 OK CIV APP 6HOLLAND v. ROBERTS (2024)
- 2024 OK CIV APP 9PREWITT v. QUIKTRIP CORPORATION (2023)
- 2024 OK CIV APP 10TEASDALE v. FOSHEE (2024)
- 2024 OK CIV APP 11NORTH STAR MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. v. ZIELNY (2023)
- 2024 OK CIV APP 14PHIL BOEVERS ENTERPRISES v. BECK (2023)
¶1 Plaintiff Phil Boevers Enterprises, Inc., appeals the trial court's orders vacating a default judgment against Defendant Gabriella Beck and vacating a judgment against Garnishee Allstate Fire and Casualty Company. After review, we affirm.
- 2024 OK CIV APP 17LIFETOUCH NATIONAL SCHOOL STUDIOS v. OKLAHOMA SCHOOL PICTURES (2023)
¶1 Lifetouch National School Studios, Inc., appeals the judgment in favor of Oklahoma School Pictures, L.L.C., in this summary proceeding. Lifetouch holds a judgment against Tulsa School Pictures, L.L.C., which it seeks to collect from Oklahoma School Pictures in this action. Lifetouch contends that Tulsa School Pictures is the alter ego or, "mere instrumentality" of Oklahoma School Pictures and argues that disregarding the separate legal existence of Tulsa School Pictures is necessary to protect the rights of third persons and accomplish justice. The appeal has been assigned to the accelerated docket pursuant to Oklahoma Supreme Court Rule 1.36, 12 O.S.2021, ch. 15, app. 1. Viewing the summary judgment record most favorably to Lifetouch, there are unresolved issues of fact regarding the separate existence of Tulsa School Pictures and whether it was the instrumentality of Oklahoma School Pictures. We reverse the judgment in favor of Oklahoma School Pictures and remand for further proceedings to determine that issue.
- 2024 OK CIV APP 18JOHNSON v. BROWN (2024)
¶1 Betty Johnson, Barbara Smola, Ruth Crocket, Janice Bako, and Kaye Fife, Trustee of the Lillian Kaye Fife Revocable Trust dated 9/27/2017, individually and derivatively on behalf of Brown, Brown, Wood and Schoelen, Inc. (collectively, Plaintiffs), appeal from trial court orders (1) granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff Joyce K. Brown, as Trustee of the Joyce Brown Trust Dated 12/31/1992, and as Trustee of the Dorsey N. Brown Trust dated 12/31/1992, and (2) granting attorney fees to Defendant. Third-Party Defendants Gloria Shadid and Steve Wood also appeal the order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant. This appeal has been assigned to the accelerated docket pursuant to Oklahoma Supreme Court Rule 1.36, 12 O.S.2021, ch. 15, app. 1, and stands submitted without additional briefing. The issue presented is whether the trial court erred in finding no material undisputed fact questions remain and that Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and secondarily, whether the trial court properly granted attorney fees to Defendant in the wake of the summary judgment. After review, we conclude it was error to grant summary judgment in favor of Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, and we reverse the summary judgment and the attorney fee order.
- 2024 OK CIV APP 19WILKIN v. MITCHELL (2024)
¶1 This dispute arises out of an order that denied a Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Stay Trial Court Proceedings, which had been sought by the Defendant/Appellant, Jack R. Mitchell. Mr. Mitchell was a party to a Confidential Settlement Term Sheet ("Settlement Agreement") that required repayment of a $1.5 million investment in a project that included two other individuals: i.e., Clain Patterson and Ralph Charles Wilkin, III. When payments were not made in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Mr. Wilkin did not pursue this action. This action was brought instead by his spouse, the Plaintiff/Appellee, Melinda Wilkin, alleging a single claim of breach of contract. The Settlement Agreement included a mandatory arbitration clause and Mr. Mitchell moved to compel arbitration. The Settlement Agreement also contained a choice-of-law provision requiring disputes to be resolved under Missouri law. The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration. We have reviewed the record and find that the trial court committed no error. Consequently, the Order Covering Hearing on January 4, 2024 ("Final Order"), is AFFIRMED.
- 2024 OK CIV APP 19WILKIN v. MITCHELL (2024)
¶1 This dispute arises out of an order that denied a Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Stay Trial Court Proceedings, which had been sought by the Defendant/Appellant, Jack R. Mitchell. Mr. Mitchell was a party to a Confidential Settlement Term Sheet ("Settlement Agreement") that required repayment of a $1.5 million investment in a project that included two other individuals: i.e., Clain Patterson and Ralph Charles Wilkin, III. When payments were not made in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Mr. Wilkin did not pursue this action. This action was brought instead by his spouse, the Plaintiff/Appellee, Melinda Wilkin, alleging a single claim of breach of contract. The Settlement Agreement included a mandatory arbitration clause and Mr. Mitchell moved to compel arbitration. The Settlement Agreement also contained a choice-of-law provision requiring disputes to be resolved under Missouri law. The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration. We have reviewed the record and find that the trial court committed no error. Consequently, the Order Covering Hearing on January 4, 2024 ("Final Order"), is AFFIRMED.
- 2024 OK CIV APP 24IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF OAKLEY (2023)
¶1 Appellant, Meka Oakley, appeals an Order Allowing Final Account, Determining Heirship, Final Decree of Distribution and Discharge entered by the trial court which included an Order denying Appellant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Admit Decedent's Holographic Last Will and Testament. The trial court refused to admit the holographic will to probate after the Parties stipulated to a report prepared by a handwriting expert who indicated that two letter "A's" included in the holographic will were not written by the decedent. We have reviewed the record, the briefs, and applicable law, and find, in accordance with 84 O.S. § 54 , the holographic will at issue was not entirely written by the decedent and, therefore, was properly denied admission to probate by the trial court. The Order of the trial court is, therefore, affirmed.
- 2024 OK CIV APP 25HENDERSON v. DAY ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS (2024)
¶1 Plaintiff (Glendale Apartments LLC) appeals the district court's order granting defendants' (Day Engineering Consultants and Corbin Swain), motion to dismiss plaintiff's negligence claim. Upon review, we find that the court improperly granted defendants' motion to dismiss and reverse and remand for further proceedings.
- 2024 OK CIV APP 26GRAHAM v. REYNOLDS (2024)
¶1 Plaintiff/Appellant, Eric Graham of the Eric J. Graham Revocable Trust, seeks review of the February 29, 2024 order of the Delaware County District Court. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendant/Appellee, Adam Reynolds, granting relief in Reynolds' favor related to the issue of Reynolds' use of his lake property for short-term rentals. The district court entered its Journal Entry of Judgment with an attendant costs and attorney fee award on June 28, 2024.
- 2024 OK CIV APP 27BELLA VISTA VILLAGE v. GOODWIN-ZAPATA (2024)
¶1 In this forcible entry and detainer (FED) action, Defendants/Appellants, Shanna Goodwin-Zapata, Joe Zapata Jr., and Joe Zapata III (Tenants), appeal from the trial court's judgment in favor of Plaintiff/Appellee, Bella Vista Village, LLC (Landlord). For the reasons set forth below, we dismiss Tenants' appeal.
- 2024 OK CIV APP 29EXENCIAL WEALTH ADVISORS v. MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY (2024)
¶1 Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC (Morgan Stanley), appeals the district court's order denying its motion to compel arbitration. Exencial Wealth Advisors LLC and Burns Wealth Management, Inc. (Exencial, unless the context requires otherwise) sued their former employee and partner, Matthew Ventura, and Morgan Stanley after Ventura went to work for Morgan Stanley. The Exencial Operating Agreement signed by Ventura contained an arbitration clause, and the district court granted Ventura's motion to compel Exencial to arbitrate its claim against him. Morgan Stanley also filed a motion to compel arbitration, which the district court denied.