This case involved a law firm's attempt to collect on a default judgment for unpaid attorney fees through garnishment proceedings against Biscuit Hill Shell Foodmart, the employer of the judgment debtor. The district court entered a default judgment against the garnishee for failing to respond to the garnishment summons. On appeal, the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals reversed the denial of the garnishee's motion to vacate, holding that the summons had been served more than 180 days after issuance without a determination of good cause for the delay, which could affect the court's personal jurisdiction over the garnishee. The court remanded for further proceedings to determine whether good cause existed for the untimely service.
This case concerned the termination of parental rights of a mother to her two infant children, both members of the Cherokee Nation, after the children were adjudicated deprived due to the mother's substance abuse, prescription medication issues, and failure to provide proper care. Following notice and participation by the Cherokee Nation, a jury found that the mother had not corrected the conditions leading to the adjudication and had failed to pay required child support for at least six of the prior twelve months, leading the district court to enter judgment terminating her rights. On appeal, the court examined the sufficiency of the evidence under state standards requiring clear and convincing proof for termination grounds and the higher beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard mandated by the federal and Oklahoma Indian Child Welfare Acts for findings that continued custody would likely cause serious harm to the children, including review of the state's active efforts at reunification and compliance with jury instructions on burdens of proof.
This case concerned a real estate broker's claim for a deferred portion of its commission following the sale of an apartment complex. Ferguson Advisors served as broker for Malherbe's sale to O'Malley's Property Management, earning a 5% commission, but agreed in writing at closing to delay payment of $13,755.82 until the buyer repaid the $825,000 seller-financed balance in full. After the buyer defaulted and deeded the property back to Malherbe in lieu of foreclosure, Ferguson sued for the unpaid amount, and the district court granted summary judgment to Ferguson. The appellate court reversed, concluding that the deferral language created a condition precedent requiring full repayment by the buyer, which had not occurred, so Ferguson had not established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The matter was remanded for further proceedings to interpret the contract and resolve any ambiguities.
This case involved a dispute over insurance coverage under commercial general liability policies issued to a building contractor. The owners of a commercial property sued the contractor for breach of warranty and negligence after water intrusion, mold, and related damage occurred due to construction defects involving an exterior insulating finishing system (EIFS), improper brick ledge slope, and deteriorated caulking. The insurer filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that the policies provided no coverage and that it had no duty to defend or indemnify the contractor. The district court granted summary judgment to the insurer, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the policies' EIFS exclusion applied to bar coverage because the damage was caused by factors including the EIFS system, making other potential causes or doctrines like efficient proximate cause irrelevant. The court did not reach issues such as whether the damage constituted an occurrence under the policies or the applicability of other exclusions.
This case involves a judgment creditor's repeated attempts to collect on a judgment by garnishing assets held in a trust for the debtor, including multiple garnishment proceedings and a later motion to levy and execute on the trust assets to satisfy the judgment. The appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to allow levy and execution against the trust as well as its award of attorney fees to the garnishee trustee. The core reasoning was that the creditor's substantive claims were barred by issue preclusion based on prior unappealed summary judgment rulings in the garnishment actions that found the trust not liable for the debtor's obligations, and the governing statute authorized the fee award.
The case involved homeowners Elton and Malissa Rhoades who sought to vacate a default judgment obtained by Northwest Roofing Supply, Inc., to enforce a materialmen's lien on their homestead after they had paid their contractor in full. Northwest had supplied materials for a home remodel but failed to provide the pre-lien notice required by 42 O.S. § 142.1 to the homeowners before furnishing materials. The district court denied the Rhoadeses' petition to vacate the judgment, which had been entered after they did not file an answer in the foreclosure suit. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed, holding that the lien was unenforceable due to the missing statutory notice and that the default judgment should therefore have been vacated, with the matter remanded for further proceedings.