Dispositions Other than by Published Opinions | September 15

September 14, 2021

Courts and More Vol. 1 | No. 36 | September 15, 2021

Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals

Division I

Division II

Division III

Division IV

118,906 — Villages at Coffee Creek Community Association, Inc., Plaintiff/ Appellee, vs. Rita M. Miller, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Larry Patterson, Kurt Pitzer, and Paul Moore, Third-Party Defendants/Appellees.  Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Thomas E. Prince, Trial Judge.  Rita Miller (Homeowner) appeals orders of the trial court granting summary adjudication to the Villages of Coffee Creek Community Association, Inc. (Village Association) and Larry Patterson, Kurt Pitzer, and Paul Moore (collectively, ARC Members).  Homeowner further appeals an order granting the Village Association’s motion for an attorney’s fee and costs.  Based on our review of the facts and applicable law, we affirm all orders on appeal.  AFFIRMED.  Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, P.J.; FISCHER, V.C.J., and RAPP, J., concur.

September 9, 2021

118,789 — B&G Production, Inc., Protestant/Appellant, vs. Wheeler Energy, LLC, Applicant/Appellee.  Appeal from the Oklahoma Corporation Commission.  B&G Production, Inc. (“B&G”) appeals Unitization Order No. 708749 of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (“Commission”).  B&G contends on appeal that the means by which applicant Wheeler Energy, LLC, provided notice of its Application for unitization order failed to meet the minimum requirements of due process, or that Wheeler failed to provide notice of the Order to B&G as required, depriving the Commission of jurisdiction.  B&G also contends that the Order fails to provide B&G sufficient, or any, compensation for the purported taking of its well and leasehold interest, and constitutes an unconstitutional taking without compensation in violation of the Oklahoma and United States Constitutions.  The Court rejects B&G’s contention that notice of the Application for Unitization Order and hearing by regular mail, in compliance with Commission regulations, fails to comport with minimal standards of due process.  Further, the Court finds that the record demonstrates that Wheeler mailed notice to B&G at the correct address, as required, and we reject B&G’s contention that it is not subject to Commission jurisdiction for lack of notice.  Additionally, the Court holds that B&G’s contention that the Plan of Unitization takes B&G’s property without compensation is without support under the law or the facts of record.  The Commission’s Order No. 708749 is therefore affirmed.  AFFIRMED.  Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, P.J.; FISCHER, V.C.J., concurs, and RAPP, J., dissents.

September 8, 2021

Return To:

News Category: