Courts and More Vol. 1 | No. 14 | April 7, 2021

Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals

Division I

118,240 – T-Downtown Development, LLC., Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Adnan Sheikh, Defendant/Appellant, and Sheikh, Inc., Defendant.  Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma.  Honorable Rebecca Nightingale, Judge.   The defendant and appellant, Adnan Sheikh, was sued for fraud stemming from the 2010 sale of a note and mortgage held by the plaintiff and appellant, T-Downtown Development LLC.  Mr. Sheikh brokered the sale.  T-Downtown contended at trial that Mr. Sheikh fraudulently directed the proceeds of the sale into his own accounts.  Mr. Sheikh denied that claim and argued unsuccessfully that T-Downtown’s claim was barred by the applicable statute of limitations.  After a bench trial, the court found against Mr. Sheikh and entered judgment accordingly.  Mr. Sheikh appeals, arguing that the claim was barred by the two-year statute of limitations for fraud, that the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court’s findings as to fraud and as to the amount of damages awarded, and that the trial court made evidentiary errors warranting reversal.  We AFFIRM. of error.  After review of Appellant’s contentions, we AFFIRM.  Opinion by MITCHELL, J.; GOREE, P.J., and PRINCE, J., concur. April 5, 2021

118,309 – Mike Narramore, Plaintiff/Appellant/Counter-Appellee, v. Compsource Mutual Ins. Co., (F/K/A Compsource Oklahoma), Defendant/Appellee/Counter-Appellant.  Appeal from the District Court of Garvin County, Oklahoma.  Honorable Steven Kendall, Trial Judge.  This appeal arises out of litigation that was initiated by the Plaintiff/Appellant/Counter-Appellee, Mike Narramore, (“Narramore”), in the District Court of Garvin County.  Narramore alleged in his Petition that the Defendant/Appellee/Counter-Appellant, CompSource Mutual Insurance Co. (“CompSource”), acted in bad faith when it handled Narramore’s workers’ compensation claim.  After a seven day trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of CompSource.  Narramore’s counsel filed a Motion for New Trial.  Narramore claimed that a new trial was warranted for the following reasons: (1) during closing argument CompSource displayed a rejected jury instruction, (2) during closing argument CompSource inappropriately referred to a witness that was not called by Narramore, (3) CompSource materially misrepresented Narramore’s testimony to the Workers’ Compensation Court of Existing Claims (“WCC”) through one of its witnesses, and (4) two jurors were asleep for significant periods of time during trial.  Narramore’s Motion for New Trial was denied and this appeal was commenced.  CompSource filed a counter-appeal asserting that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to proceed in this matter because there was no certification order from the WCC.  We find that it was nots26  error for the trial court to deny Narramore’s Motion for New Trial and affirm the jury’s verdict.  We further find that, in light of the fact that the jury returned a verdict in favor of CompSource on the contested issues and that we find no error in the denial of Appellant’s Motion for New Trial, we decline to determine the jurisdictional issue raised by CompSource. Opinion by PRINCE, J; GOREE, P.J.. MITCHELL, J., concur. April 5, 2021

118,462 – Braden Harper, an individual, Plaintiff/Appellant, v.Patricia Sullins, an individual, Defendant, v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma.  Honorable Daman H. Cantrell, Judge.  This appeal arises out of an action by Braden Harper (“Appellant”) against Patricia Sullins (“Defendant”) for damages Appellant claims arose from a rear-end collision with Defendant.  In an amended petition, Appellant added Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (“Appellee”), his underinsured motorist (“UIM”) carrier.  Defendant settled and the case continued to trial against Appellee.  The jury returned a verdict in favor of Appellant in the amount of $16,888.00.  Because the jury’s award of damages did not exceed the UIM limits, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Appellee.  Appellant thereafter filed this appeal, wherein he asserts five propositions of error.  After review of Appellant’s contentions, we AFFIRM.  Opinion by PRINCE, J.; GOREE, P.J.,dissents and MITCHELL, J., concur.  April 5, 2021

118,758  –  Julie Harvey Shook a.k.a. Julie Reani Shook and John Byron Shook, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. Randall Britt Harvey, Defendant/Appellant, and Jaci Denise Sutherland, Sandee Michele Graham a.k.a. Sandee Michelle Price and Brian Dean Graham, husband and wife, Defendants.  Appeal from the District Court of Carter County, Oklahoma.  Honorable Dennis Morris, Judge.  The primary question presented for our review in this interlocutory appeal is whether the statutory time period set forth in 12 O.S. § 1509, for filing an exception or election in a partition action, can be extended. In this particular action Defendant, Randall Britt Harvey (“Harvey”), did not file an exception to challenge the value set forth in a report of Commissioners in a timely manner.  The Plaintiffs, Julie Reani Shook and John Byron Shook (“Shooks”), filed an election to purchase the property at the appraised value in a timely manner. Harvey raised an objection long after the expiration of the statutory time period.  We hold that the trial court did not allow Harvey to object to the Shooks’ election to purchase property at the appraised value. The other issue presented is whether the fees charged by the commissioners were reasonable. We hold the trial court did not abuse its desecration in approving the Bill of Commissioners. AFFIRMED.  Opinion by PRINCE, J.; GOREE, P.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. April 5, 2021

118,882 – Stephanie Dodd, Petitioner/Appellant, Good Shepherd Lutheran School, and The Workers’ Compensation Commission, Respondents/Appellees. Stephanie Dodd (“Appellant”) seeks review of an Order entered by the Oklahoma Workers’ Compensation Commission (“Commission”) sitting En Banc, on March 10, 2020, that affirmed in part and modified in part the Decision of the Administrative Law Judge.  The issues here are (1) whether, as a matter of law, the Commission was required to find that the ALJ’s “decision was against the clear weight of the evidence or contrary to law”, pursuant to 85A O.S. §78A, when the Commission modified the ALJ’s findings of fact; and (2) whether the Commission’s award also was “[c]learly erroneous in view of the reliable, material, probative and substantial competent evidence” when it created ambiguity and uncertainty in the record when the Commission failed (as did the ALJ) to consider the Appellant’s expert medical report.  We answer both questions in the affirmative and, therefore, reverse and remand the case to the Commission.  Opinion by PRINCE, J.; GOREE, P.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. April 5, 2021

Division II

118,877 — Colclazier & Associates, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Kurt Arthur Meyer, Defendant/Appellee, and Christopher D. Wilkins, Personal Representative of the Estate of Kathleen D. Wilkins-Meyer, Deceased, Intervening Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff/Appellee, vs. Jerry L. Colclazier and Amie R. Colclazier, Third-Party Defendants/Appellees.  Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Lincoln County, Honorable Cynthia F. Ashwood, Trial Judge.  Colclazier & Associates (Law Firm) appeals two decisions of the district court:  1) that the so-called “Slayer Statute,” 84 O.S. § 231, prevented Defendant Kurt Meyer from succeeding to his deceased wife’s interest in a property held in joint tenancy with right of survivorship; and 2) that the only obligation which may legally be secured by a mortgage is a promissory note.  We affirm the district court’s interpretation of 84 O.S. § 231, but find no authority for the proposition that the only obligation which may legally be secured by a mortgage is a promissory note.  Estate counter appeals.  We find that our decision here overturns the court’s decision that certain issues are moot, and we decline to address Estate’s other questions, which have not been fully litigated in the trial court.  AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by THORNBRUGH, J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and BARNES, J., concur. March 31, 2021

Division III

118,291 – In Re The Marriage Of Angela Reed, Petitioner/Appellant, vs Kerry Reed, Respondent/Appellee v. Reed Power Tongs, Inc., Reed Land and Cattle, L.L.C., K&H Well Service, Inc., JKJ Oil and Gas, L.L.C., Gerald Reed, Heath Reed, Betty Reed, Jon D. Flowers, Charles M. Laster and Toma Explorations, L.L.C., Defendants/Appellees.  Appeal from the District Court of Semiole County, Oklahoma.  Honorable Jeff Virgin, Trial Judge. Angela Reed (Wife), Petitioner/Appellant, seeks review of the May 22, 2019 Seminole County District Court’s order granting the Defendants’/Appellees’, Kerry Reed (Husband), Reed Power Tongs, Inc., Reed Land and Cattle, L.L.C., K&H Well Service, Inc., JKJ Oil and Gas, L.L.C., Gerald Reed, Heath Reed, Betty Reed, Jon D. Flowers, Charles M. Laster and TOMA Explorations, L.L.C., request to reconsider the district court’s order on remand. On December 17, 2018, the district court found Husband acquired a 50% marital interest in Reed Power Tongs, Inc., Wife and Husband acquired a 50% marital interest in Reed Land and Cattle, L.L.C., and Wife and Husband acquired a 33% martial interest in JKJ Oil and Gas, L.L.C. The district court’s December 17, 2018 order found neither Husband nor Wife acquired any martial interest in K&H Well Service, Inc. Defendants/Appellees requested the court reconsider the December 17, 2018 order.  Upon Appellees’ request to reconsider, the district court conducted a hearing on May 15, 2019. The district court granted Defendants’/Appellees’ request to reconsider, finding that based on an analysis of the tax returns submitted as evidence, Husband and Wife acquired no marital interest in any of the Reed properties, Reed Power Tongs, Reed Land and Cattle, K&H Well Service and JKJ Oil and Gas. From this order Wife brings this appeal, which follows two prior appeals and remands in Case Nos. 112,274 and 114,515. The May 22, 2019 order of the Seminole County District Court, granting Appellees’ request to reconsider the December 17, 2018 order on remand, is AFFIRMED. Opinion by PEMBERTON, P.J.; SWINTON, C.J., and BELL, J., concur. April 1, 2021

118,903  ­- In The Matter of P.R., Alleged Deprived Child, Oklahoma Department of Human Services, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Eurydis Reifschneider aka Eurydis Rosario, Defendant/Appellee.  Appeal from the District Court of Grant County, Oklahoma.  Honorable Jack Timmons, Judge.  Plaintiff/Appellant Oklahoma Department of Human Services (State) appeals from an order dismissing a petition alleging that the minor child P.R. is deprived, and awarding custody of the minor child to the Defendant/Appellee Eurydis Reifschneider a/k/a  Eurydis Rosario (Mother).  The child’s father (Father) stipulated to the adjudication of the deprived status as to him, and does not appeal.   State argues that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the case because it found that the minor child was abused by Father, but not adjudicated deprived as to Mother.  The trial court’s order cited the recent case Matter of J.C., 2018 OK CIV APP 32, 417 P.3d 1218, for the proposition that the minor child could be separately adjudicated as to each parent.  We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions. Opinion by SWINTON, C.J., PEMBERTON, P.J., and BELL, J., concur. April 1, 2021

Division IV

117,798 (Consolidated with Case No. 117,801) – Brandon and Danielle Andrew, as Guardians of B.A., a minor child, and individually, as her parents, Plaintiffs/Appellees, vs. Elisa Depani-Sparkes, D.O., Defendant, and Mercy Health Center, Inc., d/b/a Mercy Health Center, Defendant/Appellant.  Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Aletia Haynes Timmons, Trial Judge.  Mercy Health Center, Inc. d/b/a Mercy Health Center (“Mercy”) appeals the trial court’s January 30, 2019 order, denying its motion to vacate/motion for new trial.  In its motion, Mercy raised issues pertaining to the admission and exclusion of certain evidence at trial, and we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion on these grounds.  Mercy’s motion also alleged the trial court erred by calculating the prejudgment and post-judgment interest amounts it owed based on the 2004 version of title 12, section 727.1 in effect at the time the case was commenced, instead of the 2013 version of the statute in effect at the time of the verdict.  We find the 2013 version of section 727.1 applies and remand for the trial court to compute the interest amounts in accordance therewith.  AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.  Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, P.J.; FISCHER, V.C.J., and RAPP, J., concur. March 31, 2021

118,858 – In the Matter of the Adoption of J.W.S. and K.F.S., Minor Children:  Nicole Sanders, Appellant, vs. Jeremy Sanders and Erika Sanders, Appellees.  Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Richard Kirby, Trial Judge.  Nicole Sanders (Natural Mother) appeals the trial court’s finding that her minor children, J.W.S. and K.F.S., are eligible for adoption without her consent.  In view of the evidence presented at the hearing, much of which was Natural Mother’s own admissions, and the deference we give to the trial court’s determination of the credibility of the witnesses, we hold the finding that Natural Mother willfully failed to pay child support was supported by the clear weight of the clear and convincing evidence presented at the hearing.  Also, we hold the trial court’s finding that Natural Mother failed to substantially comply with the child support order during the relevant time period was supported by the clear weight of the clear and convincing evidence presented at the hearing.  Additionally, Natural Mother alleges the trial court erred by sustaining Petitioners’ objection to the admission of the “Federal Poverty Guidelines,” finding the evidence irrelevant.  We find the trial court’s exclusion of the evidence was not a clear abuse of discretion.  AFFIRMED.  Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, P.J.; FISCHER, V.C.J., and RAPP, J., concur. April 1, 2021

119,109 – Haley Murphy, individually and as Class Representative on Behalf of the Class Constituting All Similarly Situated Citizens and Residents of Oklahoma Who are Insured by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Oklahoma, Inc., Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Oklahoma, Inc., Defendant/Appellee.  Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Canadian County, Hon. Paul Hesse, Trial Judge.  Haley Murphy appeals the dismissal of her putative class action against Blue Cross Blue Shield of Oklahoma, Inc. (BCBS).  Murphy’s First Amended Petition failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and we affirm the District Court’s Orders of July 15, 2016, and September 9, 2020.  Further, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Murphy leave to conduct discovery prior to responding to BCBS’s Motion to Dismiss.  We likewise find that Murphy was not entitled to leave to amend, because the deficiency in her pleading could not be corrected, and because she rejected the opportunity to amend when offered.  AFFIRMED.  Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, P.J.; FISCHER, V.C.J., concurs, and RAPP, J., concurs in result. April 1, 2021

118,415 – In the Marriage of:  Jeffrey Schippers, Petitioner/Appellant/Counter-Appellee, vs. Janice Schippers, Respondent/Appellee/Counter-Appellant.  Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Tulsa County, Hon. Anthony Miller, Trial Judge.  Jeffrey Schippers (Husband) appeals from the trial court’s Decree of dissolution of Marriage, an order awarding Janice Schippers (Wife) additional support alimony pending appeal, and an order awarding Wife an attorney’s fee and denying his application for fees and costs.  Wife counter-appeals the Decre as well as an order denying, in part, her motion for new trial.  Based on our review of the facts and applicable law, we affirm the Decree and October 29, 2019 order in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with our Opinion.  In addition, we reverse in part and modify the October 9, 2019 order awarding Wife additional support alimony pending appeal.  Finally, we affirm the February 26, 2020 order awarding Wife an attorney’s fee and denying Husband’s application for fees and costs.  AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, P.J.; FISCHER, V.C.J., and RAPP, J., concur.  April 2, 2021

---