Kenneth L. Buettner

The case involved the State of Oklahoma seeking to adjudicate C.R.G. as a deprived child after the infant sustained rib fractures suspected to result from abuse while in the father's custody. The child was initially removed under an emergency custody order but returned when the State failed to file a timely deprived-child petition; the State then obtained a second emergency order on the same facts, filed a petition, and secured an adjudication of deprived status after a hearing that included medical testimony on abuse. The father appealed, claiming errors including res judicata preclusion of the second proceeding, denial of due process from delayed hearings, improper continuances, and insufficient evidence. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, holding that the State could re-file after the initial procedural lapse, the father received adequate process, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a continuance, and competent evidence supported the adjudication. Topics selected reflect the family-law nature of the child-welfare proceeding and the procedural and due-process issues raised on appeal.

family lawprocedurecivil rights

In Buckingham v. Buckingham, the wife sought attorney fees after using contempt proceedings to enforce a temporary order in a pending divorce action, where the husband was found guilty of violating the order by failing to make car payments. The trial court awarded the fees under Oklahoma statute, and the husband appealed on the ground that no statute authorized fees for enforcing a pre-decree temporary order. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, holding that 43 O.S. § 110(E) permits awards of attorney fees for enforcement of any interlocutory orders in a dissolution action, including temporary orders, because the statute covers subsequent actions brought after the petition is filed.

family lawprocedure

The case involved a workers' compensation claim by Joseph Stapleton against his employer, Durant Metal Shredding, for injuries sustained in a physical altercation with a co-employee at work. The Workers' Compensation Court initially found the injury compensable, but on appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals vacated that order. The court determined that the injury resulted from horseplay or similar willful behavior under 85 O.S. § 11(A)(4), as Stapleton was not an innocent victim but rather a voluntary participant who provoked and engaged in the fight, making it non-compensable.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case was a mortgage foreclosure action filed by CitiFinancial against the Careys after they defaulted on a loan secured by real property. Citi moved for summary judgment, and a hearing was held before Judge Ring, who orally granted the motion but did not enter any written order or minute before retiring; the case was then reassigned to Judge Schumacher, who entered summary judgment and a journal entry based on representations about the prior oral ruling. The Careys appealed, arguing lack of notice and improper procedure. The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that a successor judge has no authority to enter judgment based on a predecessor's oral decision absent any record evidence documenting that ruling.

propertyprocedure

In Griffin v. Cudjoe, plaintiffs Jerry Griffin and Robert Hollis, individually and on behalf of Victory Bible Baptist Church, sued the church's pastor for misusing approximately $100,000 in church funds from a property sale, writing bad checks, failing to pay bills, and spending church money on personal expenses, seeking an accounting, injunctive relief, and damages for breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court granted a temporary restraining order, compelled document production, and after hearings awarded damages to the plaintiffs. The appellate court affirmed, holding that civil courts have jurisdiction over church property disputes that can be resolved by neutral principles of law without resolving religious doctrine, that the plaintiffs had standing as church representatives, and that the record supported the judgment and damages. The decision rejected the pastor's arguments that the matter was an internal ecclesiastical issue or that relief was improperly granted.

propertyreligious libertyproceduretorts & liability

In this case, Doris Marler, on behalf of the Nowata Senior Citizens Center, sought a protective order against Steve Kloehr based on allegations of stalking at board meetings, where the parties had no family, household, or dating relationship. The trial court issued an emergency order and later a final order of protection after a hearing. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that the trial court abused its discretion because the statute requires a stalking victim without the specified relationship to file a complaint with law enforcement beforehand and provide a copy at the full hearing, which Marler failed to do. The decision was based solely on this procedural requirement under 22 O.S. Supp. 2009 § 60.2.A.1 and did not reach the sufficiency of the stalking evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

Horace Scott filed a workers' compensation claim alleging cumulative trauma injuries to his neck and hands from repetitive keyboard and monitor use at Sprint PCS, with the last date of exposure in December 2009. The trial court found the injuries compensable and awarded temporary total disability benefits, but a three-judge panel modified the award to limit pre-surgery TTD to eight weeks under the statute treating cumulative trauma as a soft tissue injury. The Court of Civil Appeals sustained the panel's order, reasoning that the statute caps TTD at eight weeks for nonsurgical soft tissue injuries unless the claimant petitions for and obtains court approval for an extension based on a surgery recommendation, which Scott did not do before undergoing hand surgery. The court noted that without such prior approval, the regular limits apply even after surgery is performed.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Richard Brown suing his insurers, Oklahoma Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company and AG Security Insurance Company, for breach of contract, bad faith, and fraud after they denied coverage and a defense in a lawsuit where Brown was found liable for negligence in a home inspection. Brown had sought indemnity under a commercial general liability policy for claims arising from his failure to report structural defects during an inspection performed as part of a real estate transaction. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the insurers, holding that the policy unambiguously excluded coverage for liability due to rendering professional inspection services, for non-occurrence property damage, and for expected or intended injury. Because the exclusions provided a reasonable basis to deny the claim, the insurers could not be liable for bad faith or breach as a matter of law. The court also noted that Farm Bureau was not the issuing insurer and owed no duty to Brown.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involved Material Service Corporation's claim that Rogers County's void annexation of leased mining property, intended to block a limestone mining permit, amounted to a temporary regulatory taking from 2000 to 2003 that prevented mining until the annexation was invalidated on appeal. After prior reversals of summary judgment, a jury found the county liable for inverse condemnation and awarded $12.5 million in compensation, which the court affirmed because the verdict was supported by competent evidence and the 15-year limitations period for such claims had not expired. The court reversed the attorney fees and costs award, however, because the trial court had misinterpreted the contingent fee contract as a matter of law, and remanded for a proper determination of reasonable fees and eligible costs.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In Rodriguez v. Gutierrez-Perez, plaintiffs who obtained a judgment against a driver involved in a 2009 vehicle collision sought to garnish minimum liability insurance benefits from Equity Insurance Company, which insured the vehicle but had issued a policy with a named driver exclusion barring coverage for that driver. The trial court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, ruling that the named driver exclusion violated Oklahoma public policy and was invalid at least up to the statutory minimum coverage. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed, holding that the insurer was not required to provide coverage because named driver exclusions are valid under Oklahoma's compulsory insurance laws. The court relied on Oklahoma Supreme Court precedent, including Pierce v. Oklahoma Property and Casualty Ins. Co., which has repeatedly affirmed the validity of such narrow exclusions, and noted that the legislature retained statutory language allowing certain exclusions when amending the law in 2009.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a boundary dispute between neighboring property owners in Tulsa County over a narrow strip of land between the surveyed boundary and a longstanding fence line. Appellees McDonald and Trotter sued Martin for trespass and damage after he removed the fence and trees, asserting ownership of the strip through adverse possession; Martin counterclaimed to quiet title in his favor. The trial court quieted title to the strip in the appellees with a slight boundary adjustment and awarded them damages for a damaged tree, while holding that a 1995 quit-claim deed had no effect on title. On appeal, the court reversed the quiet title ruling, reasoning that the quit-claim deed had conveyed away any interest the appellees had acquired by adverse possession because its legal description included the disputed strip, but it remanded the case for consideration of whether the boundary had been established by acquiescence.

property

This case involved consolidated foreclosure actions by RCB Bank and Bank of Commerce (BOC) against the same real property, with the sole appellate issue being the priority between the two banks' mortgages. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to BOC, ruling its mortgage superior, and the appellate court affirmed. BOC's mortgage, recorded in 2004, included a future advances clause securing both a 2004 promissory note from Breakers, LLC, and a 2007 note guaranteed by Breakers, while RCB's two mortgages were not recorded until 2008; the court held that the earlier recording date and the clause's coverage of the guaranteed debts established BOC's priority without any effective release or expiration of its security interest. The decision rested on undisputed facts about the recording dates, the mortgage terms, and the continuing validity of the obligations despite modifications and payments.

propertybusiness & regulatory

In Bank of Commerce v. Breakers, L.L.C., appellants Marvin Y. and So-obhyun Jin and Bank of Oklahoma sought to intervene in a consolidated foreclosure action involving mortgages on Lot 18 of the Villas at Shangri-La Resort. The Jins had signed a purchase contract before the lis pendens notice but closed their purchase and recorded their deed and mortgages after the notice was filed in May 2009. The trial court denied their motion to intervene, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. The court held that the appellants' post-lis pendens interest was void as to the prevailing party under Oklahoma's lis pendens statute and that they failed to satisfy the requirements for intervention of right, including timeliness and an interest that could be impaired. It also found no abuse of discretion in denying permissive intervention.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a dispute between Okfuskee County Rural Water District No. 3 and the City of Okemah along with its Utilities Authority over water rates charged under a 1983 contract and later modifications. The rural water district alleged breach of contract and violations of state statutes requiring enterprise accounting and nondiscriminatory rates in setting charges for water. Following a bench trial, the trial court found the City not liable, held the Authority had overcharged the district and failed to use required accounting methods, but limited damages to the period after the petition was filed and awarded specific amounts for overcharges and accounting expenses. On appeal, the court affirmed the findings that the Authority breached the contract and violated applicable statutes including 11 O.S. § 37-119(B), but reversed the limitation on damages to post-petition amounts and the calculation of overcharges, remanding for a full award of damages based on the contract terms and statutory requirements.

business & regulatory

The Gibsons sued their homeowners insurer for bad faith, alleging wrongful cancellation and refusal to pay a claim for wind and hail damage to their home that occurred after the policy period. The insurer moved for summary judgment on the grounds that it had sent timely notice of nonrenewal, no policy was in effect at the time of the loss, and therefore it owed no duty to pay or negotiate in good faith. The trial court granted summary judgment, finding no dispute of material fact and no contract of insurance existed. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the nonrenewal notice was unconditional, the Gibsons had not paid a premium for renewal, and absent a policy the insurer could not be liable for bad faith denial of the claim.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

In State v. Young, a surety company appealed the denial of its motion to set aside a $100,000 bond forfeiture after defendant Randy Lewis Young failed to appear for trial in Stephens County on drug charges. The surety argued that a Comanche County court's decision to release Young on bond after his guilty plea to trafficking (an offense barring appeal bonds under 22 O.S. § 1077) materially increased its risk and constituted good cause to vacate the forfeiture under 59 O.S. § 1332(C)(5). The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion because the surety had assumed the risk of nonappearance before the guilty plea, Young had appeared twice after the plea, and the statutory good-cause standard was not met by the possibility of a lengthy sentence. The court also rejected the argument that the other county's alleged error in releasing Young prevented forfeiture.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a divorced couple disputing visitation rights for their minor daughter after the mother relocated to Iowa. The father sought to modify a prior court order that had delegated all decisions about visitation to the child's private psychologist, resulting in no contact between father and daughter. The appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of the motion to modify, holding that the 2008 order improperly divested the court of its statutory duty under Title 43 to determine visitation based on the child's best interests. The court also reversed the child support calculation, which imputed the father's prior income without considering his job loss, and the award of attorney fees to the mother. The matter was remanded for further proceedings on visitation and support.

family law

The case concerned a dispute over mortgage priority on property sold by the Wagoners to the Borrowers, where the Borrowers obtained financing from both the Wagoners (via a vendor's purchase money mortgage recorded August 22, 2007) and American Bank of Oklahoma (via a third-party purchase money mortgage recorded earlier on August 8, 2007), after the Borrowers defaulted. The Bank sued to foreclose and sought a ruling that its mortgage was superior, while the Wagoners cross-claimed asserting their mortgage had priority; the trial court granted summary judgment to the Bank. On appeal, the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals reversed, ruling as a matter of first impression that the Wagoners' vendor's purchase money mortgage was superior to the Bank's. The court adopted the Restatement (Third) of Property view, reasoning that a vendor parting with previously owned property warrants priority over a third-party lender providing only cash secured by newly acquired property, with no subordination agreement or other facts altering the outcome.

property

The case involved a workers' compensation claim in which Deborah Ward sought to reopen her case based on a change of condition for the worse after an initial award of permanent partial disability in 2003. The Workers' Compensation Court denied the motion, finding it untimely under 85 O.S. § 43(C), which imposes a three-year jurisdictional limit from the date of the last order substantially affecting monetary, medical, or rehabilitative benefits. Ward argued that later orders, including a 2006 change-of-physician order and a 2006 reimbursement order, qualified as resetting orders, and that her December 2008 filing related back to a timely motion. The Court of Civil Appeals sustained the denial, holding that those later orders did not confer new benefits and thus did not extend the period, leaving the court without jurisdiction. A dissent maintained that the 2006 medical-treatment order substantially affected benefits and started the clock anew.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case concerned the estate of Lola Ladene Webb, who died in 2004; son-in-law Charles Watkins filed a petition for letters of administration asserting intestacy, while daughter Robin Webb later petitioned to admit a 2003 will to probate and objected to the initial filing. After the will was admitted in 2008 following years of litigation and non-appearance by Watkins and related parties, Webb sought attorney fees on grounds that the original petition was frivolous and without merit. The trial court denied fees, finding the petition was not totally without merit. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed on that issue, ruling that the filing violated 12 O.S. § 2011 by lacking legal or factual support and serving improper purposes, and remanded for determination of the fee amount; it affirmed the final distribution order because the cross-appeal was dismissed or abandoned.

family lawprocedure