Supreme Court of Oklahoma
IN THE MATTER OF THE ASSESSMENTS FOR TAX YEAR 2012
2021 OK 7, 118243 | Decided 02/09/2021
¶1 Taxpayers were successful with their ad valorem tax protest appeal and they sought an award of postjudgment interest pursuant to 12 O.S. § 727.1 . Their motion was granted by the District Court. We hold the taxpayers may not use the general statute for postjudgment interest, 12 O.S.Supp.2013 § 727.1 , for an award of interest on the amount they recovered in an ad valorem tax protest appeal. The specific statute, 68 O.S.Supp.2015 § 2884 , which was used by the Tulsa County Assessor to determine taxpayers' interest provides the proper procedure for payment of accrued interest on taxpayers' protested ad valorem tax refund payment. The holding in State ex rel. Oklahoma Employment Security Commission v. Sanders , 1956 OK 262 , 304 P.2d 287 , to the extent it may authorize application of a general postjudgment interest statute to a refund in an ad valorem tax protest appeal, is disapproved, and shall not apply when an ad valorem statute, such as 68 O.S.Supp.2015 § 2884 , specifically provides for investment of a taxpayer's protested tax payment and payment of the accrued interest to a taxpayer. The record on appeal does not clearly indicate taxpayers have received their refund with interest as provided by 68 O.S. § 2884 . The District Court judgment awarding postjudgment interest pursuant to 12 O.S.Supp. § 727.1 to taxpayers is reversed. The matter is remanded for additional proceedings consistent with our opinion.
Court of Criminal Appeals in the State of Oklahoma
No decisions this week.
Court of Civil Appeals in the State of Oklahoma
No decisions this week.
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
No. DF-117730 (District Court Final Order or Judgment) -Armond Davis Ross, Petitioner/Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma and Judge J. Dwayne Steidley, Respondents/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Rogers County, Oklahoma. Honorable J. Dwayne Steidley, Trial Judge. This is the third appellate proceeding by Appellant concerning his efforts to secure return of certain personal property that law enforcement seized from him during an investigation that led to a criminal action and his conviction in 2005. This case concerns the limited issue of whether the settled law of the case doctrine prevents relitigation of a claim that a different Division of this Court has previously identified as having been “waived” by the Appellant. On January 10, 2019, the Trial Court ordered destruction of the video camera and tapes which are at issue here. We AFFIRM the Trial Court’s Order of January 10, 2019, with respect to the destruction of the video camera and tapes. Opinion by Prince, J.; GOREE, P.J., MITCHELL, J., concur. Feb. 8, 2021.
No. CU-117780 (Corporation Commission Utility) - Complaint of Northwestern Electric Cooperative, Inc. Against Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company for Enforcement of the Retail Electric Supplier Certified Territory Act and Commission Order No. 95298: Iochem Corporation, Appellant, v. Oklahoma Corporation Commission, Appellee, and Northwestern Electric Cooperative, Inc., Complainant/Appellee, Oklahoma Association of Electric Cooperatives, Intervenor/Appellee. Appeal from the Oklahoma Corporation Commission En Banc. The central question in this case is whether the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, at the request of Appellee, Northwest Electric Cooperative, Inc., properly barred OG&E from providing electrical service to an electric consuming facility of the Appellant, IOCHEM Corporation which is located outside of OG&E’s certified territory. To reach that issue, we must construe the applicable statutory language of the Retail Electric Supplier Certified Territory Act, found at 17 O.S. 2011, §§ 158.21, et seq. The Final Order of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission found the issues in favor of the Appellee, Northwest Electric Cooperative, Inc. We AFFIRM that decision. Opinion by PRINCE, J.; GOREE, P.J., and MITCHELL, J. concur. Feb. 8, 2021.
118,930 - Demetrius Rogers, Appellant, vs. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. Honorable Tom Riesen, Trial Judge. This is an appeal of an order denying Father’s motion to revoke his consent to the termination of his parental rights due to duress. Because Father did not demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence he consented to the relinquishment of his parental rights because of duress, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Father’s motion to revoke consent. We AFFIRM. Opinion by GOREE, P.J.; MITCHELL, J., and PRINCE, J., concur. Feb. 8, 2021.
COCA TULSA DVISION II
No. SD-119056 (Summary Disposition) — Jake Allen Medlin and Sierra Shyann Simpson Medlin, Plaintiffs/ Appellants, vs. Morgan Law and Metro First Realty, Defendants/Appellees, and Robert Thompson, Jr., a/k/a Robert E. Thompson, Jr.; Carrie Thompson, a/k/a Carrie L. Thompson; Vicki Johnson; Green Meadow Realty Co. d/b/a Keller Williams Realty; Jeremy Proctor; BDP Enterprises, LLC; A-Pro Home Inspection, Defendants. Appeal from an order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Don Andrews, Trial Judge. Jack Allen Medlin and Sierra Shyann Simpson Medlin appeal the trial court’s dismissal of their claims against Morgan Law and Metro First Realty. We consider the Medlins’ appeal after the trial court certified pursuant to 12 O.S.2011 § 994(A) that it had directed the preparation and filing of the final order and there was no just reason for delay. The issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in dismissing the Medlins’ claims against Morgan Law and Metro First Realty because they failed to file these claims within two years of the transfer date of the real property in question. The primary issues are whether the Medlins’ claims are subject to Oklahoma’s Residential Property Condition Disclosure Act (RPCDA), 60 O.S.2011 §§ 831-839, and if so, whether their claims are time-barred pursuant to that Act. After review, we conclude the trial court properly granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss because the RPCDA applies to the Medlins’ claims which were not timely filed pursuant to the RPCDA. We affirm the trial court’s decision. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; BARNES, J., and THORNBRUGH, J., concur. Feb. 5, 2021.
No. DF-118258 (District Court Final Order or Judgment) – Kristen Dickey, individually and as spouse, and Heather Fussell-Dickey, individually and as spouse, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Wade Electronics, LLC, d/b/a Wade Electric, an Oklahoma limited liability company, and the Heirs and Successors of Richard Wade, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Cleveland County, Hon. Lori Walkley, Trial Judge. Plaintiffs appeal from the trial court’s judgment granting summary judgment in favor of Wade Electric, and dismissing all claims asserted against the Heirs and Successors of Richard Wade “for failure to serve within 180 days.” We conclude no dispute of material fact exists as to whether the conduct at issue occurred within the scope of Mr. Wade’s employment. Therefore, the trial court properly determined the doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply and that summary judgment should be granted to Wade Electric on the theories of intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence. Further, we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Wade Electric on the theories of defamation and blacklisting because Plaintiffs voluntarily abandoned these theories. Therefore, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Wade Electric. Regarding the trial court’s determination with regard to the Heirs and Successors of Mr. Wade, we note that Plaintiffs failed to provide any response to this particular issue below, and Plaintiffs have not set forth this issue in their petition in error as an issue to be reviewed on appeal. In the absence of any attempt on the part of Plaintiffs to show good cause under 12 O.S. Supp. 2017 § 2004(I) why such service was not made, we affirm this portion of the judgment. Finally, Plaintiffs acknowledge that Ms. Fussell-Dickey’s only claim is for loss of consortium, and that a claim for loss of consortium is derivative and depends upon the existence of a viable cause of action in favor of the spouse whose consortium was allegedly lost. Having concluded that no viable cause of action exists in favor of Ms. Dickey, we further conclude summary judgment was properly entered in favor of Defendants on this derivative claim. Consequently, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by BARNES, J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and THORNBRUGH, J., concur. Feb. 5, 2021.
No. DF-118458 (District Court Final Order or Judgment) – Giggie Hill, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Ada Payne, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Hon. Daman H. Cantrell, Trial Judge. Defendant (Ms. Payne) appeals from the trial court’s judgment denying her motion to vacate an administrative order of the Oklahoma Department of Labor (DOL). Plaintiff (Ms. Hill) initiated the present proceeding in the district court in order to collect an award entered by the DOL against Ms. Payne in response to Plaintiff’s wage claim filed with the DOL. Ms. Payne alleges she “was suffering under a disability at the time of the alleged service by the [DOL]” in the administrative proceeding, and, “[a]s such, the notice was defective” in that proceeding. Ms. Payne requested, in the present proceeding, that the DOL order be vacated by the district court under 12 O.S. 2011 § 1031(5). She requests on appeal that the trial court’s judgment denying her motion to vacate be reversed and that the case remanded for an opportunity to present evidence in support of her assertions under § 1031(5). However, here, § 1031 cannot form the basis of an attack on the DOL’s order because the language of that statutory section is limited to a district court’s “own judgments and orders.” Moreover, only facially void agency orders stand subject to collateral vacation in a district court action, and Ms. Payne does not challenge the facial validity of the DOL’s order, which was not appealed or otherwise directly challenged. For these reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by BARNES, J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and THORNBRUGH, J., concur. Feb. 4, 2021.
COCA TULSA DIVISION IV OPINION
117,501 — In the Matter of the Adoption of Baby Boy N., a minor child, Max Harris, Appellant, vs. Brandon and Cherie McDade, Appellees. Appeal from an order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Richard Kirby, Trial Judge. Max Harris is the biological father of BBN, a minor child. Brandon and Cherie McDade are petitioners for adoption of BBN without Father’s consent. Father appeals the order in this adoption proceeding finding that his consent was not required due to his willful failure to support the child for the statutory period. Appointed counsel for the child has entered an appearance and filed a statement supporting Father. For the reasons stated in our Opinion, clear and convincing evidence does not support the finding that Father willfully failed to support his child thus forfeiting his parental rights. Based on this examination of the record and analysis of the law, the order allowing adoption without consent is reversed. REVERSED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by WISEMAN, V.C.J.; BARNES, P.J., and RAPP, J., concur. Feb. 5, 2021.
Share the Love, VOLUNTEER
The need for legal assistance is great, especially during this pandemic. We thank Oklahoma lawyers for all you do, and offer these reminders about these OBA programs that you can become involved with throughout our state.
OSAGE County District Judge Interviews Rescheduled
Due to the inclement weather, interviews for the position of Associate District Judge for Osage County, previously scheduled for February 9, are being rescheduled for March 4, 2021. Read more ...
Dodging Microsoft Tech Support Phone Scams
February 9, 2021
That helpful person calling from Microsoft Tech Support is most likely a scammer. The odds go up to 100% if they tell you they noticed a problem with your computer and are calling to help you fix it. You can easily test that premise by telling them they have just reached an FBI agent and…
Whether you are hiring, looking for a career move, offering office space or searching for a service - let the OBA Classified service help. For advertising rates and details, at firstname.lastname@example.org, or by telephone (405) 416-7018.