Courts and More Vol. 1 | No. 28 | July 14, 2021

Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals

Division I

Division II

Division III

119,103 – True Steel, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Great Salt Plains Midstream, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Major County, Oklahoma.  Honorable Tim Haworth, Trial Judge. In this action to foreclose an oil and gas lien and alternatively, for money damages resulting from unjust enrichment and other claims, Plaintiff/Appellant, True Steel, LLC (Subcontractor), appeals from the trial court’s order dismissing its action against Defendant/Appellee, Great Salt Plains Midstream, LLC (Midstream).  Subcontractor was hired by Project Services, Inc., the general contractor, to provide crane services in connection with Midstream’s expansion of its gas processing plant.  Project Services, Inc., now in bankruptcy, did not pay Subcontractor for its services.  Subcontractor filed an oil and gas lien against the real property upon which Midstream’s plant is situated and this action to foreclose the lien.  In the alternative, Subcontractor sought to recover money damages against Midstream for breach of contract under the agency rule, for unjust enrichment/quantum meruit, and for an account stated.  Midstream moved to dismiss Subcontractor’s action claiming Subcontractor’s oil and gas lien was invalid; it failed to state a claim under agency or account stated; it failed to name an indispensable party to the action; and Subcontractor was legally precluded from claiming quantum meruit because it had an adequate statutory remedy at law.  We hold Subcontractor adequately stated a claim against Midstream for unjust enrichment.  That portion of the trial court’s order is reversed and remanded for further proceedings related to the unjust enrichment claim.  The trial court’s dismissal of Subcontractor’s remaining claims against Midstream is AFFIRMED.  Opinion by BELL, J.; SWINTON, C.J., concurs and PEMBERTON, P.J., concurs in part and dissents in part.  July 6, 2021

Division IV

118,911 – Benjamin Michael Dawley, Petitioner/Appellee, vs. Sarah Elaina Dawley, Respondent/Appellant.  Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Thomas C. Riesen, Trial Judge.  The respondent, Sarah Elaina Dawley (Wife), appeals a Decree of Dissolution of Marriage entered in an action brought by the petitioner, Benjamin Michael Dawley (Husband).  Wife first argues the trial court erred in failing to award her one-half of Husband’s unvested military retirement account.  The unvested military account is an asset of this marriage.  The Oklahoma Supreme Court requires that an Order be entered protecting the interest of the spouse not under the account.  The trial court did not do so, and the cause is remanded with instructions to enter the appropriate Order.  Wife also argues the support alimony awarded was inadequate.  The traditional factors to consider when awarding support alimony do not consider the unique circumstances present here because of the time and financial constraints imposed on the parents as a result of the special needs of two of their children.  This Court finds that the support alimony award is inadequate as to the amount of support alimony and as to the installment structure.  The cause is remanded for reconsideration and an increase of the award and to structure the installments so that the first two years have larger installments.  The trial court shall also enter an addendum to the visitation schedule to provide for each parent to assume responsibility to take and pick up the two children from their therapy sessions.  This addendum schedule may be subject to modification for good cause.  The Decree of Dissolution of Marriage is reversed only with respect to the award of the unvested military retirement and the award of support alimony.  The trial court is instructed to determine whether child support for one or both of the autistic children should be ordered at this time for an indefinite time or whether consideration of the issue should be postponed for a subsequent proceeding.  AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.  Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by RAPP, J.; FISCHER, V.C.J., and HIXON, P.J., concur.  July 7, 2021

---

Return To: