Douglas L. Combs

The case concerned a mortgage foreclosure action filed by U.S. Bank as trustee against the Moores after they defaulted on a note and mortgage originally executed in favor of Colonial Bank, with MERS named as nominee. The bank moved for summary judgment, attaching the note (indorsed in blank), mortgage, and an assignment of mortgage executed after suit was filed but made retroactively effective; the trial court granted default judgment and later denied the Moores' petition to vacate. The Oklahoma Supreme Court reviewed the denial for abuse of discretion and analyzed whether the bank had shown it was the holder entitled to enforce the note under the UCC at the time of filing, given the timing of the assignment and the requirements for possession and indorsement of a bearer instrument.

propertyprocedure

In this Oklahoma foreclosure case, homeowners executed a promissory note and mortgage in 2007 that later went into default; the plaintiff, NTex Realty, filed suit in 2010 claiming to hold the note and mortgage but initially provided only unindorsed copies, later supplementing with an allonge and assignment. The trial court granted summary judgment to NTex, but the Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed on de novo review. The court held that a foreclosure plaintiff must demonstrate standing by showing it was a person entitled to enforce the note at the time suit was filed, and here a factual dispute existed over when NTex acquired that status. The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine the timing of NTex's interest.

propertyprocedure

In this case, BAC Home Loan Servicing filed a foreclosure petition against Jack R. Swanson on a home loan note originally transferred via an allonge, but provided no evidence at filing that it held the note or was entitled to enforce it. The trial court granted BAC's motion for summary judgment, which the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, but the Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed and remanded. The court held that a question of fact existed as to when BAC acquired holder status under the note, and that standing to foreclose requires demonstrating the right to enforce the note at the time the action is commenced. The decision followed precedent requiring plaintiffs in foreclosure suits to show proper documentation of their interest in the note before proceeding to judgment.

propertyprocedure

The case concerned a mortgage foreclosure action in which borrowers Cin Kham and Ngul Liam Cing defaulted on an adjustable-rate note secured by a mortgage naming MERS as nominee for the original lender, Encore Credit Corporation. After a default judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff trustee for asset-backed certificates, the borrowers moved to vacate the judgment, asserting that the plaintiff lacked standing to foreclose. The Oklahoma Supreme Court applied an abuse-of-discretion standard to the trial court's refusal to vacate, outlined the background of the MERS electronic registry system, and emphasized the longstanding rule that the mortgage follows the note, requiring the plaintiff to demonstrate it was the holder entitled to enforce the note at the time suit was filed.

propertyprocedure

The case was a mortgage foreclosure action filed by Bank of America against Kabba and his wife in Cleveland County, Oklahoma, in which the bank claimed to hold the note and mortgage as successor trustee but did not reference or attach proof of a blank endorsement on the note in its initial petition. An assignment of the mortgage executed by MERS was recorded nine months after filing, and the endorsed note was first produced with the bank's motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment, holding that the bank lacked standing because it failed to show it was entitled to enforce the note at the time the action was commenced. The court reasoned that standing is a jurisdictional requirement that must exist from the filing of the petition, and later-acquired documents cannot retroactively confer the necessary interest in the negotiable instrument.

propertyprocedure

This case involved a mortgage foreclosure action filed by Chase Home Finance Milwaukee against homeowners David and Mary Eldridge after they defaulted on a promissory note and mortgage originally executed in favor of J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. The borrowers raised issues including the plaintiff's standing to sue, arguing that the entity had not shown it was the holder of the note at the time of filing, as the note was unendorsed, no assignment was recorded until after suit was commenced, and there was uncertainty about corporate mergers and name changes among the Chase entities. The trial court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, finding it was the owner and holder of the note and mortgage. On appeal, the Oklahoma Supreme Court reviewed the matter de novo and focused on standing as a jurisdictional requirement that must be established based on a direct interest at the time of filing, determining that the record lacked evidence the plaintiff was the holder under the UCC when the action began.

propertyprocedure

This case concerned a petition by grandparents Teryl and Robert Pearson to adopt Teryl Pearson's grandson G.D.J. without the consent of the child's natural mother, Tessia Bre Stubbs, on grounds that Stubbs had failed to provide support or maintain a meaningful relationship with the child during the relevant period. The trial court held two hearings and entered orders adjudicating the child eligible for adoption without the mother's consent under Oklahoma law, despite the child's eligibility for Seminole Nation membership and the application of the Indian Child Welfare Act; the tribe had received notice but declined to seek transfer to tribal court. Stubbs appealed the orders, raising issues including res judicata from a prior proceeding, alleged violations in obtaining prior custody, and procedural matters, and the appeals were consolidated before the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reviewed the trial court's jurisdiction to enter further orders during the appeal and addressed the substantive findings that Stubbs had provided no support and had only sporadic contact with the child.

family lawprocedure

This case involved disciplinary proceedings against Oklahoma attorney Jon R. Running for continuing to practice law while administratively suspended for nonpayment of bar dues from June 2009 to May 2010. The Oklahoma Bar Association alleged violations of Rules 5.5(a) and 9.1 of the professional conduct and disciplinary rules, including representing clients in foreclosure and other litigation, providing legal advice, negotiating settlements, and failing to notify clients or withdraw from cases as required. After a hearing, the Professional Responsibility Tribunal found the violations and recommended an 18-month suspension, a recommendation the Bar endorsed along with an application for costs. The Oklahoma Supreme Court conducted a de novo review of the facts, confirming Running's unauthorized practice and noncompliance with suspension notification obligations under Rule 9.1. The court imposed the recommended discipline based on the established misconduct and prior precedents for similar violations.

procedure

This case involves a medical malpractice claim by parents against doctors and a medical center for failing to diagnose a Cytomegalovirus infection during the mother's first trimester of pregnancy, resulting in their child being born with severe complications; the parents alleged they would have terminated the pregnancy if properly informed but did not claim the defendants caused the infection or could have treated it. The trial court limited recoverable damages to the medical costs of continuing the pregnancy offset by termination costs, but the Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed that ruling on certified interlocutory appeal. The court held that damages are available for extraordinary medical expenses and other pecuniary losses proximately caused by the negligence, drawing on prior wrongful conception precedents distinguishing healthy versus handicapped children, but disallowed claims for emotional distress or normal child-rearing costs.

healthcaretorts & liabilityfamily law

In this case, plaintiff Hubbard sued defendants for breach of an oil and gas lease and related contracts. Defendants made offers of judgment under 12 O.S. Supp.2002 § 1101.1(B), which Hubbard rejected; after summary judgments for defendants and an intervening appeal and remand, the trial court awarded defendants their post-offer attorney fees and costs. The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a defense judgment triggers the statute's fee-shifting provision, that an earlier offer of judgment remains effective after remand, and that finality for fee purposes is measured from the date of the ultimate judgment rather than any interim order. The Court interpreted the statutory phrase 'judgment awarded the plaintiff' to encompass a zero-recovery defense verdict and rejected arguments that the offers were invalid or unreasonable.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a dispute over title to eighty acres of land in Oklahoma that had been deeded to the United States to be held in trust for the Southern Cherokee Indian Tribe as part of a casino development agreement. The trial court granted summary judgment finding the deeds void because the Southern Cherokee Nation was not a federally recognized Indian tribe and thus not a legal entity capable of holding title, returning the property to the original owners and divesting the defendants of any interest. The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed on de novo review, holding that a conveyance to a non-existent legal entity is void under Oklahoma law, that the tribe presented no proof of legal recognition, and that a subsequent quitclaim deed conveyed nothing since the purported grantor never held title.

propertyfederal power

This case involved a dispute between the City of Oklahoma City and the International Association of Fire Fighters over negotiations for a collective bargaining agreement under the Fire and Police Arbitration Act for fiscal year 2010. After the parties could not reach agreement and submitted last best offers to an interest arbitration board, the board sustained the union's motion to strike the City's offer on grounds that the City failed to bargain in good faith by unilaterally altering contract language on wage approaches without prior negotiation. The City challenged the board's authority and jurisdiction in district court, leading to litigation over the arbitration decision, ballot titles, and the scheduling of a required special election to submit the offers to voters; the election was ultimately canceled. The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's final order granting the City relief on its claim regarding the arbitration board's authority, dismissing the City's second claim without prejudice, and denying the union's motion to remand the matter to arbitration.

labor & employmentelectionsprocedure

The case involved Seneca Telephone Company bringing tort claims against the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma for repeatedly damaging Seneca's underground telephone lines during excavation work performed on property owned by the Eastern Shawnee Tribe. The trial court entered judgments for Seneca totaling over $13,000 plus costs and attorney fees, rejecting the Tribe's sovereign immunity defense, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed based on a preemption analysis involving state underground facilities laws and federal telecommunications regulation. The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed and ordered dismissal, holding that under federal law an Indian tribe enjoys sovereign immunity from suit for its commercial activities unless Congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has unequivocally waived immunity. The court found no such congressional authorization in the relevant federal statutes or waiver by the Tribe, and distinguished the case from precedents involving state regulation of alcohol sales on tribal land.

federal powerproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a patient who sued her surgeon for negligence and lack of informed consent after breast augmentation surgery led to complications and a follow-up procedure; she claimed the surgeon performed a more invasive mastopexy without her consent, constituting battery. The trial court gave the jury general verdict forms covering both claims without separate findings, and the jury found for the defendant; the plaintiff first objected to the forms only after deliberations began. The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the late objection waived any challenge to the verdict form under established precedent, and that the forms and instructions were not fundamentally flawed or misleading when viewed with the full record and proper jury instructions on negligence, consent, and battery. The Court of Civil Appeals' reversal was vacated.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In Thornton v. Thornton, a mother sought to register a 1979 Texas divorce decree in Oklahoma under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act to enforce over $72,000 in child support arrearages from a son born in 1975, sixteen years after he turned eighteen. The father objected, arguing the claim was barred by Texas statutes of limitations and dormancy rules that rendered the judgment unenforceable. The trial court denied registration, the Court of Civil Appeals reversed, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed the trial court, holding that a foreign support order must be valid and enforceable in the issuing state to be registered and enforced in Oklahoma. The court reasoned that UIFSA provisions require applying the issuing state's law to the nature, extent, and duration of payments, including statutes of limitations, and that Texas law had caused the judgment to become dormant and unrevivable by 2005. Thus, no valid order existed for Oklahoma courts to recognize.

family lawprocedure