Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals

Division I

118,993  –  In the Matter of the Termination of the Rita F. Forman Revocable Living Trust Under date of July 15, 1991, as amended on April 13, 1999. In the First Amendment to said Trust and as amended on August 29, 2006, in the Second Amendment to said Trust, In the Matter of the Termination of the Stanley E. Forman Revocable Living Trust nder date of July 16, 1991, as amended on April 13, 1999, in The First Amendment to said Trust, and as amended to said Trust, and amended on August 29, 2006 in the Second Amendment to said Trust, and as amended January 26, 2011 in the Third Amendment to said Trust, and as Amended December 7, 2011 in the (second) Third Amendment to said Trust.  Alan Joseph Forman, individually and as Trustee of the Rita F. Forman Revocable Living Trust, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Stephen R. Forman, individually and as a Trustee of the Rita F. Forman Revocable Living Trust and as Trustee of the Stephen R. Forman Revocable Living Trust dated April 7, 2008; Charlotte Lynn Blevins, individually and a Trustee of the Rita F. Forman Revocable Living Trust; and Jeffrey Scott Forman, individually and as a Trustee of the Rita F. Forman Revocable Living Trust, Respondents/Appellees, and In the Matter of the Estate of Rita F. Forman, Deceased, and Stanley E. Forman, Deceased.  Appeal from the District Court of Kingfisher County, Oklahoma.  Honorable Paul K. Woodward, Trial Judge.  Appellant, Alan Forman, appeals the July 15, 2020 Kingfisher County Court decision in the probate matter of the above titled cause. The parties are the four children and co-trustees of the Rita F. Forman Revocable Living Trust and the Stanley E. Forman Revocable Living Trust. Upon Rita Forman’s death, Stanley Forman became the trustee of his late wife’s trust. Upon Stanley Forman’s death, the four children became co-trustees of the trusts that once belonged to their parents. The probate trial addressed the home place property which Stanley Forman conveyed to his oldest son, as well as other personal property that was conveyed during Stanley Forman’s lifetime. Appellant asserted it was a breach of Stanley Forman’s fiduciary duty to the children to convey the property without accounting for the corpus, as Rita Forman wanted the corpus of her trust to be given to the four children equally. Appellant also asserted his brother, Stephen Forman, breached his fiduciary duty and should return the property to the trust and be removed as a trustee. The district court declined this requested relief and we affirm. AFFIRMED. Opinion by GOREE, P.J.; MITCHELL, J., and PRINCE, J., concur. – Dec. 22, 2021

Division II

119,604 — Brad Baker Properties, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company, Plaintiff/Appellee, vs. Trac-Work, Inc., a foreign for-profit business corporation, Defendant/Appellant.  Appeal from an order of the District Court of Canadian County, Hon. Jack D. McCurdy, II, Trial Judge, granting Plaintiff Brad Baker Properties, LLC’s motion for summary judgment.  Trac-Work argues the trial court erred in granting Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment because (1) there are disputed questions of law and fact, (2) Plaintiff’s mortgage does not take priority over its lien, (3) Trac-Work’s “work was performed on a railroad for purposes of the lien statutes granting priority,” and (4) Trac-Work’s work met the statutory requirements for a superior lien.  Although Trac-Work contends its work entitled it to a railroad lien under 42 O.S.2011 § 161, the statutory lien established in that section does not apply to this non-railroad property and work under the undisputed facts of this case.  We conclude, as did the trial court, that summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff was proper as a matter of law, and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.  AFFIRMED.  Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; BARNES, J., concurs, and BLACKWELL, J., concurs in result. – Dec. 22, 2021

Division III

119,666  –   Bill Satterfield and Riverside Revocable Living Trust, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Titan Sports & Performance Center, LLC, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma.  Honorable Daman H. Cantrell, Trial Judge. Plaintiff/Appellant Bill Satterfield appeals from an order granting summary judgment to Defendant/Appellee Titan Sports & Performance Center, LLC (Titan) concerning a dispute over land currently owned by Titan in Tulsa County.  The trial court granted Titan’s motion for summary judgment, finding that a prior decision in Tulsa County District Court concerning the same property (then-owned by Titan’s predecessor-in-interest), wherein the trial court ordered that Satterfield is perpetually enjoined from claiming any right, title, interest, or estate in or to the property, applied to Satterfield’s claims herein.  On appeal, Satterfield argues that the prior order is inapplicable to his claims in this case and that his property is landlocked, and therefore, is entitled to an easement of necessity. The trial court correctly interpreted prior rulings regarding the property at issue and we AFFIRM. Opinion by SWINTON, C.J.; BELL, P.J., and GOREE, J. (sitting by designation), concur. – Dec. 22, 2021

Division IV