Courts and More Vol. 1 | No. 26 | June 30, 2021

Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals

Division I

118,820 – George W. Barnett, III, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. The University of Tulsa, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Jefferson D. Sellers, Judge.  Plaintiff/Appellant George W. Barnett, III (Trey) challenges the trial court’s decision to sanction him by dismissing with prejudice his case against  Defendant/Appellee the University of Tulsa (TU) after Trey’s husband procured discovery documents in violation of an agreed protective order, published the documents online, and purchased billboard space to advertise the website.  We find the court did not abuse its discretion.  Further, because we find no reversible errors of law and the trial court’s order sets forth extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law adequately explaining its decision, we AFFIRM under Oklahoma Supreme Court Rule 1.202(d), 12 O.S. 2011, Ch. 15, App. 1.  Opinion by MITCHELL, J.; GOREE, P.J., and PRINCE, J., concur. June 24, 2021

119,567 – Janice Steidley, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. William “Bill” Higgins, Erin Oquin, Carl Williams, Sally Williams, and Edith Singer, Defendants/Appellees.  Appeal from the District Court of Rogers County, Oklahoma.  Honorable Linda S. Thomas, Trial Judge. On October 9, 2020, Janice Steidley (“Appellant”) filed a Petition in Rogers County District Court against William “Bill” Higgins (“Higgins”), Erin Oquin (“Oquin”), Edith Singer (“Singer”), and Carl and Sally Williams (the “Williamses”) (collectively the “Appellees”), seeking relief for defamation and related claims in what has become the third iteration in this saga:  i.e., the third separately filed action by Appellant concerning the factual dispute at issue.  On April 6, 2021, the trial court entered its Decision and Order dismissing Appellant’s case with prejudice pursuant to 12 O.S. §§ 100 (i.e., the “Savings Statute”), 2012(B)(8) (i.e., the “another action pending” defense), and the applicable statute of limitations.  We hold that Oklahoma’s savings statute, 12 O.S. § 100, does not begin to run until after a pending appeal has become final.  As a consequence, and after review of the record on appeal, we find that the dismissal of Appellant’s claims for relief was legal error.  Accordingly, the trial court’s April 6, 2021 Decision and Order is reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this Opinion. Opinion by PRINCE, J.; GOREE, P.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. June 24, 2021

Division II

118,809 – Kast Trust Farms, Petitioner/Appellant, vs. Washita County Assessor, Respondent/Appellee.  Appeal from the District Court of Washita County, Oklahoma, Honorable Jill C. Weedon, Trial Judge.  Petitioner appealed a decision of the Washita County Board of Equalization to the district court.  The Board’s decision concerned the valuation of Petitioner’s home for property tax purposes.  Petitioner seeks, in essence, to challenge a valuation increase ten years later.  Pursuant to 68 O.S. Supp. 2019 § 2880.1, a trial de novo was held in the district court, and in the district court’s order from which Petitioner now appeals, the district court affirmed the Board’s decision.  The district court’s order is neither clearly against the weight of the evidence nor contrary to law and, because no reversible error of law appears and the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the district court adequately explain the decision, we affirm under Oklahoma Supreme Court Rule 1.202(d), 12 O.S. 2011, ch. 15, app. 1.  AFFIRMED UNDER RULE 1.202(d).  Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by BARNES, J.; RAPP, J. (sitting by designation), concurs, and WISEMAN, P.J., dissents.  June 24, 2021

118,814 – State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma State Board of Medical Licensure and Supervision, Plaintiff/Appellee, vs. Stephen L. Greer, M.D., License No. MD 17372, Defendant/Appellant.  Appeal from the Oklahoma State Board of Medical Licensure and Supervision.  Defendant appeals from a decision of the Board revoking his medical license without the right to reapply.  We are unpersuaded by Defendant’s arguments that the Board abused its discretion in failing to grant him a second continuance; that the Board’s purported denial of a second continuance request was fundamentally unfair or in violation of his due process rights; that Defendant was denied the right to a fair hearing as a result of certain statements made during closing arguments; that the Board failed to take into account certain factors set forth in OAC § 435:5-1-4(a) (in particular, “acceptance by the defendant for responsibility in the disciplinary action, remorse by the defendant, or action taken by the defendant to make amend for wrongful conduct”) and therefore failed to comply with its own rules; and that the Board’s order fails to comply with 75 O.S. 2011 § 312(A), which pertains to findings of fact and conclusions of law in final agency orders.  Consequently, we affirm the order of the Board revoking Dr. Greer’s medical license without the right to reapply.  AFFIRMED.  Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by BARNES, J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and FISCHER, V.C.J. (sitting by designation), concur.  June 24, 2021

118,861 — Traci Ballard, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Oklahoma Historical Society and City of Guthrie, Defendants/Appellees.  Appeal from an order of the District Court of Logan County, Hon. Louis A. Duel, Trial Judge, granting summary judgment to Defendants Oklahoma Historical Society and City of Guthrie.  Plaintiff alleges trial court error in granting Defendants’ motions for summary judgment by finding that the Governmental Tort Claims Act precludes Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants, that no substantial controversy exists as to any material facts, that the staircase Plaintiff fell down was open and obvious, and that she was contributorily negligent.  After de novo review of the record, we affirm the trial court’s entry of summary judgment for the reasons stated in our opinion based on functions exempt under the GTCA.  AFFIRMED.  Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; BARNES, J., and RAPP, J. (sitting by designation), concur. June 25, 2021

Division III

Division IV

119,519 — Devin Duane Herrod, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Mercy Hospital Oklahoma City, d/b/a Mercy Sleep Center-Quailbrook, Defendant/Appellee.  Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Honorable Susan Stallings, Trial Judge, granting Mercy Hospital Oklahoma City, Inc. d/b/a Mercy Sleep Center-Quailbrook’s (Mercy) motion for summary judgment.  The issue on appeal is whether the trial court properly found that Mercy was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  We find Herrod failed to identify any hidden defect or dangerous condition in the premises causing his injury, and that a jury would be required to speculate as to the proximate cause of his injuries.  The trial court correctly entered summary judgment in Mercy’s favor, and the order granting Mercy summary judgment is therefore affirmed.  AFFIRMED.  Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, P.J.; FISCHER, V.C.J., and RAPP, J., concur. June 23, 2021

118,990 — Harry O’Brien, Plaintiff/Appellee, vs. Robert Wayne McGaugh, Defendant/Appellant.  Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Honorable Aletia Haynes Timmons, Trial Judge.  Robert Wayne McGaugh (Defendant) appeals the trial court’s Order Confirming Sheriff’s Sale.  Defendant argues Harry O’Brien (Plaintiff) failed to meet his burden of proving he abandoned the subject property; therefore, it was no longer a homestead exempt from forced sale.  Given the evidence presented at the hearing, or the lack thereof, we agree that Defendant’s intent to abandon the subject property was not shown by clear and convincing evidence.  We therefore find the trial court’s decision was clearly against the evidence and reverse the Order Confirming Sheriff’s Sale.  REVERSED.  Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, P.J.; FISCHER, V.C.J., and RAPP, J., concur. June 29, 2021

---

Return To: