Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals

Division I

118,982 – In Re The Marriage of Lorenz: Landon Bernhardt Lorenz, Petitioner/Appellee, v. Kendal Huber Lorenz, Respondent/Appellant.  Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma.  Honorable Gregory J. Ryan, Judge.  Honorable Gregory J. Ryan, Judge.  In this post-divorce modification proceeding, Respondent/Appellant Kendal Huber Lorenz challenges the trial court’s denial of her application for attorney fees.  The record designated for appellate review does not show an abuse of discretion in denying the application.  Accordingly, we AFFIRM.  Opinion by MITCHELL, J.; GOREE, P.J., BELL, J., concur. – Nov. 18, 2021

119,074 – Daniel E. Villanella, Individually and as Trustee of the Daniel E. Villanella Revocable Living Trust, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Bob E. Taylor and Julia C. Taylor (now Cealka), Defendants/Appellees.  Appeal from the District Court of Rogers County, Oklahoma.  Honorable Sheila A. Condren, Trial Judge. Plaintiffs/Appellants appeal from the trial court’s denial of their Motion to Reconsider that was entered on September 1, 2020.  The claims here by Appellants were based on alleged violations of the Residential Property Condition Disclosure Act.  See 60 O.S. § 831, et seq.  Following a five day jury trial, a verdict was entered in favor of the Appellant for the sum of $3,500.00, which was much less than the amount Appellants were seeking.  Appellants filed a timely application for attorney fees and costs.  The statutory basis for prevailing party attorney fees and costs was not disputed.  See 60 O.S. § 837(d).  Following a hearing, the trial court awarded the Appellants attorney fees in the sum of $15,877.50, for attorney fees and the sum of $3,069.88, for costs.  Appellants had sought, however, a total of $117,525.00 for attorney fees and $17,841.47 for court costs.  Both sides have appealed the trial court’s ruling on Appellant’s application for attorney fees and costs.  We find that the trial court’s decision was not an abuse of discretion.  Consequently, we AFFIRM. Opinion by PRINCE, J.; GOREE, P.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. – Nov. 23, 2021

119,208 – Timothy W. Teel, D.O., Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Farmers’ Union Hospital Association, d/b/a Great Plains Regional Medical Center, Johathan Gill; Craig Phelps;Erick C. Derocher; Cole Wootton; Marnie; Tosh; Jeff Jackson; Misty Carter; Talequah Hospital Authority, d/b/a/ Northeastern Health System; Jim Berry; Brian Woodliff; Berry Winn; Brent Rotton; Jack Myers; C.J. Jankas; Unidentified Members of the Medical Executive Committee at Great Plains Regional Medical Center; Unidentified Members of the Medical Executive Committee at Northeastern Health System; Allergy Ear, Nose & Throat Institute; P.L.L.C.; Dale B. Smith D.O. Defendants/Appellees.  Appeal from the District Court of Beckham County, Oklahoma.  Honorable Jill Carpenter Weedon, Trial Judge. Plaintiff/Appellant, Timothy Teel, D.O., seeks review of the October 23, 2020 appealed from order. The district court’s order granted the motions to dismiss of Defendants/Appellees, Farmers’ Union Hospital Association, d/b/a Great Plains Regional Medical Center, and Defendants Corey Lively, Jonathan Gill, Craig Phelps, Erick Derocher, Cole Wootton, Marnie Tosh, Jeff Jackson and Misty Carter, as well as Defendants Allergy Ear, Nose & Throat Institute, P.L.L.C. and Dale Smith, D.O.  we affirm the district court order in part, reverse the order in part and remand for further proceedings.  Opinion by GOREE, P.J.; MITCHELL, J., and PRINCE, J., concur. – Nov, 23, 2021

Division II

119,818 – Malik Shakur, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Board of Review for Oklahoma Employment Security Commission, Defendant/Appellee.  Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Aletia Haynes Timmons, Trial Judge.  Plaintiff appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his petition for review of a decision of the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission Board of Review (the Board of Review).  Plaintiff named only the Board of Review in his petition.   He failed separately to name the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission, and he also failed to name his former employer that was a party to the proceeding below.  Plaintiff’s failure to name all necessary parties is fatal to his appeal which was properly dismissed by the district court.  See Davis v. Okla. Emp. Sec. Comm’n, 2010 OK 45, 238 P.3d 922; Okla. Emp. Sec. Comm’n v. Carter, 1995 OK 74, 903 P.2d 868.  On this basis, we affirm the judgment of the district court.  AFFIRMED.  Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by BARNES, J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and BLACKWELL, J., concur. – Nov. 18, 2021

118,526 – State of Oklahoma, James M. Boring, District Attorney, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. One Hundred Thirteen Thousand Dollars ($113,000) U.S. Currency, Respondent, and Gerardo De La Torre, Appellee.  Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Texas County, Hon. Jon Parsley, Trial Judge.  The State of Oklahoma appeals a decision by the district court returning $93,000 in previously seized cash to the appellee, Gerardo De La Torre. In a civil action tried before the bench, the trial court’s judgment, absent pure error of law, will not be disturbed on appeal if there is any competent evidence reasonably tending to support the trial court’s judgment. Having reviewed the record in full, we find that the trial court’s decision rests on such evidence. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II by BLACKWELL, J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and BARNES, J., concur. – Nov. 19, 2021

119,033 (Companion with Case No. 119,032) – Taylor Edwards, Petitioner/Appellee, v. Michael Laub, Defendant/Appellant.  Appeal from the District Court of Canadian County, Hon. Charles Gass, Trial Judge.  Defendant Michael Laub appeals from an order of protection granted to Petitioner Taylor Edwards.  Mr. Laub argues the trial court erred because no pre-petition filing of an enforcement complaint for “stalking” was filed as required by 22 O.S. 2011 § 60.2.  He also argues the filed complaint for “harassing/intimidation” is not a police report complaint for “stalking” and is “only a ‘harassment’ complaint based on an alleged racial slur and a sign-in-yard incident[.]”  Mr. Laub also argues a lack of some evidence and erroneous acceptance of other evidence presented at the hearing were errors requiring reversal.  No transcript of the hearing or narrative statement is in the appellate record; thus, no error is ascertainable or reviewable by this Court on appeal regarding the evidence presented at the hearing.  Further, Mr. Laub’s argument that the court erred as a matter of law because Petitioner only filed a harassing/intimidation complaint, not a stalking complaint, is without merit.  Not only has Mr. Laub failed to provide any authority for the proposition that only a complaint denominated stalking will satisfy the requirement of § 60.2, but his argument overlooks the Protection from Domestic Abuse Act’s definition of stalking that includes “the willful, malicious, and repeated . . . harassment of a person by an adult . . . in a manner that would cause a reasonable person to feel . . . intimidated [or] harassed and actually causes the person being . . . harassed to feel . . . intimidated [or] harassed[.]”  22 O.S. 2011 & Supp. 2019 § 60.1(9).  From our review of the record on appeal, we conclude Mr. Laub has failed to show that the trial court’s order of protection was an abuse of discretion.  AFFIRMED.  Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by BARNES, J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and BLACKWELL, J., concur – Nov. 18, 2021

119,032 (Companion with Case No. 119,033) – Candace Marie Johnson, Petitioner/Appellee, v. Michael Laub,   Defendant/Appellant.  Appeal from the District Court of Canadian County, Hon. Charles Gass, Trial Judge.  Defendant Michael Laub appeals from an order of protection granted to Petitioner Candace Marie Johnson.  Mr. Laub argues the trial court erred because no pre-petition filing of an enforcement complaint for “stalking” was filed as required by 22 O.S. 2011 § 60.2.  He also argues the filed complaint for “harassing/intimidation” is not a police report complaint for “stalking” and is “only a ‘harassment’ complaint based on an alleged racial slur and a sign-in-yard incident[.]”  Mr. Laub also argues a lack of some evidence and erroneous acceptance of other evidence presented at the hearing were errors requiring reversal.  No transcript of the hearing or narrative statement is in the appellate record; thus, no error is ascertainable or reviewable by this Court on appeal regarding the evidence presented at the hearing.  Further, Mr. Laub’s argument that the court erred as a matter of law because Petitioner only filed a harassing/intimidation complaint, not a stalking complaint, is without merit.  Not only has Mr. Laub failed to provide any authority for the proposition that only a complaint denominated stalking will satisfy the requirement of § 60.2, but his argument overlooks the Protection from Domestic Abuse Act’s definition of stalking that includes “the willful, malicious, and repeated . . . harassment of a person by an adult . . . in a manner that would cause a reasonable person to feel . . . intimidated [or] harassed and actually causes the person being . . . harassed to feel . . . intimidated [or] harassed[.]”  22 O.S. 2011 & Supp. 2019 § 60.1(9).  From our review of the record on appeal, we conclude Mr. Laub has failed to show that the trial court’s order of protection was an abuse of discretion.  AFFIRMED.  Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by BARNES, J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and BLACKWELL, J., concur. – Nov. 18, 2021

Division IV

119,609 – TIB-The Independent Bankers Bank, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Joseph K. Goerke, Defendant/Appellee, and Kyle E. Goerke, a/k/a Kyle Edward Goerke; Spouse, if any, of Kyle E. Goerke; John Doe, Occupant; A.E. Goerke; Francis Goerke; Ethel B. Williamson; State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Tax Commission; and First State Bank, Defendants.  Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Blaine County, Hon. Justin P. Eilers, Trial Judge.  The plaintiff, TIB-The Independent Bankers Bank (TIB), appeals the trial court’s denial of its motion for summary judgment against the defendant, Joseph K. Goerke (Goerke), and the grant of Goerke’s summary judgment.  TIB filed its first foreclosure against debtor and named Goerke and others as having a recorded right of first refusal on the mortgaged property which TIB claimed to be inferior to its mortgage.  Goerke, an attorney, answered and alleged that the right had expired and demanded a dismissal.  TIB provided a broad dismissal with prejudice including the right to bring a new cause of action.  The debtor reinstated the note, and no judgment was taken.  At that time, Goerke also had a recorded mortgage which he did not plead or otherwise disclose.  Prior to filing the first foreclosure, TIB’s law firm had a title report listing Goerke’s mortgage.  However, TIB’s claim of superiority to that mortgage was never added to the petition.  Subsequently, debtor again defaulted, and TIB filed a second foreclosure.  In this second foreclosure action, Goerke was named as the holder of the mortgage and that is the same claim that was omitted from the first foreclosure.  Goerke interposed defenses of claim splitting and claim preclusion as a bar to TIB’s claim in the second foreclosure.  The trial court sustained his summary judgment motion on these grounds.  After review, this Court concludes that the undisputed facts establish the elements of both defenses.  The trial court is affirmed.  AFFIRMED.  Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by RAPP, J.; HIXON P.J., concurs, and FISCHER, V.C.J., dissents. – Nov. 18, 2021

118,663 – In re the estate of Anthony Huff, deceased:  Bryan & Terrill Law, P.L.L.C.; Spencer Bryan, an individual; and Steven Terrill, an individual, Appellants, vs. Long, Claypole & Blakley Law, PLC; Durbin, Larimore & Bialick, P.C.; and Wyant Law Firm, P.L.L.C., Appellees.  Appeal from Order of District Court of Garfield County, Hon. Tom L. Newby, trial judge.  Appellant Bryan & Terrill Law, P.L.L.C. appeals the district court’s order finding that its contingency fee contract controls its entitlement to attorney fees after dismissal by its client.  Bryan & Terrill also appeals the denial of its motion for new trial.  After review of the record and applicable law, we find that the district court’s construction of the Bryan & Terrill contract was not contrary to Oklahoma law and its calculation and award of attorney fees was supported by the evidence.  We further find that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Bryan & Terrill’s motion for new trial.  The orders appealed are affirmed.  AFFIRMED.  Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by FISCHER, V.C.J.; HIXON, P.J., and RAPP, J., concur.  – Nov. 19, 2021

118,891 – Michael C. Washington, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Anthony R. Douglas, Defendant/Appellee.  Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Cindy Truong, Trial Judge.  Michael C. Washington appeals a decision of the district court that he has no standing to intervene in the operation of either the Freedom Center, a building historically associated with the civil rights movement in Oklahoma, or of its not-for-profit corporate owner, Freedom Center, Inc. On review, we affirm the decision of the district court.  AFFIRMED.  Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by BLACKWELL, J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and BARNES, J., concur. – Nov. 19, 2021