Dispositions Other than by Published Opinions | July 21
July 20, 2021
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
118,787 – Jimmy L. Gee, Petitioner/Appellant/Counter-Appellee, v. Codie D. Gee, Respondent/Appellee/Counter-Appellant. Appeal from The District Court of Murray County, Oklahoma. Honorable Aaron Duck, Trial Judge. Petitioner/Appellant/Counter-Appellee Jimmy L. Gee (Father) and Respondent/Appellee/Counter-Appellant Codie D. Gee (Mother) both appeal the denial of Mother’s Motion to Modify, in which she sought an order terminating joint custody. The trial court found neither party could be trusted to be sole custodian and therefore continued joint custody, despite overwhelming evidence the parties are unwilling to cooperate or act in the children’s best interests. The record shows the trial court abused its discretion in not terminating joint custody. Although Father’s stalking charge was reduced to disturbing the peace, we find the trial court erred in failing to consider the presumption that a parent who has stalked another is not entitled to an award of custody. We reverse and remand with directions to determine which parent is entitled to sole custody of the children. Opinion by SWINTON, C.J.; PEMBERTON, P.J., and BELL, J., concur. July 14, 2021
117,834 – State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Department of Transportation, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Charles L. Bass, Jr., and Brenda R. Bass; First United Bank & Trust Company; Lamar Outdoor Advertising, Inc.; and the Tulsa County Treasurer, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Caroline Wall, Trial Judge. In this condemnation action, Plaintiff/Appellant, State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Department of Transportation (ODOT), appeals from the trial court’s judgment, entered upon a jury verdict, awarding Defendants/Appellees, Charles L. Bass, Jr., and Wanda R. Bass (Landowners), $3,137,270.00 for the taking of 11.03 acres of undeveloped land (Property) in Jenks, Oklahoma. The Property was irregular in shape and topography, with no improvements except for two operating oil wells and an outdoor advertising sign subject to a lease with Landowners. The commissioners appointed to appraise the Property’s value determined the compensation due Landowners was $2,710,000.00. Both ODOT and Landowners filed demands for a jury trial. At trial and over ODOT’s objection, Landowners’ appraiser testified the highest and best use of the Property was to develop it into nine (9) commercial sites and sell them individually or as a group. Instead of using raw, undeveloped land as comparable sales, the appraiser relied solely on the sales of fully developed commercial sites with paved streets, level pad sites and full utilities. After deducting anticipated development costs, the appraiser testified the Property was worth $5,800,000.00. Based upon the holdings in City of Tulsa v. Biles, 1961 OK 37, 360 P.2d 723, and State ex rel. Dept. of Transp. v. Panell, 1993 OK CIV APP 60, 853 P.2d 244, we hold the trial court committed reversible error by allowing Landowners to introduce evidence valuing the Property using the “development approach.” REVERSED AND REMANDED. Opinion by BELL, J.; SWINTON, C.J., and PEMBERTON, P.J., concur.
119,062 – David Foster, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Sheraton OKC, Defendant/ Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Gary Walke, Trial Judge. Dave Foster, pro se, appeals the trial court’s August 18, 2020 Journal Entry of Judgment entered in this small claims action in favor of Sheraton OKC. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, P.J.; FISHER, V.C.J., and RAPP, J., concur. July 14, 2021