Carol M. Hansen

In this case, father Lemont Gardner appealed the trial court's order terminating his parental rights to three children under Oklahoma's deprived child statutes. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the termination, holding that neither the jury verdict nor the judgment contained all findings required by 10 O.S.Supp.2009 § 1-4-904(B)(5) and Subsection A. Specifically, the verdict and order failed to state that the father had been given at least three months to correct the conditions leading to the deprived adjudication or that termination was in the children's best interests, both of which are mandatory statutory prerequisites. The court emphasized that termination of parental rights must strictly comply with statutory requirements to protect the fundamental right to parent.

family lawprocedure

This case involved a challenge by mineral and leasehold interest owner Ann Drummond Woolley to an order of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission that granted Pontotoc Production Company's application to pool the McAlester and Hunton formations in a specified drilling unit. Woolley argued that the Commission should have dismissed the pooling application as to the known dry Hunton formation, that the Commission's allocation of drilling costs between the two formations was improper, and that Woolley should have been permitted to share in acreage force-pooled from non-participating owners under prior pooling orders from which Woolley was omitted due to a title error by Pontotoc. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the Commission's refusal to dismiss the Hunton pooling and its cost allocation method, finding both consistent with the pooling statute and supported by substantial evidence, but reversed on the force-pooled acreage issue. The court held that the right to share in such acreage is an equitable right arising from an election to participate in the well and that Pontotoc could not retain Woolley's share based on its own title mistake. The matter was remanded for further proceedings on the acreage-sharing question.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Scott Sexton sued KIPP Reach Academy Charter School and its principal for breach of an implied employment contract after the school rescinded a job offer upon learning of his sexual orientation. Sexton alleged that communications, a letter of intent specifying salary and terms, issuance of a cell phone, and enrollment in a conference formed an implied one-year contract terminable only for cause. The trial court dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim, finding no employment contract existed. On appeal, the court reversed and remanded, holding that the allegations of mutual intent, essential terms, and reasonable reliance sufficiently pleaded the existence of an implied contract under Oklahoma law, making the breach claim legally sufficient.

labor & employment

This case involves a divorce proceeding between Melissa Johnson (Wife) and Scott Johnson (Husband), initiated in 2009, concerning custody of their two sons, division of marital property including two vehicles, alimony payments, and the status of a protective order issued in a separate case. The trial court awarded custody to Wife, classified the vehicles as marital property to be sold with proceeds divided equally, ordered alimony in lieu of support, and directed that the protective order remain in effect for three years. On appeal from the denial of Husband's motion for new trial, the court affirmed the custody, property division, and alimony determinations, finding no abuse of discretion and that the vehicles were properly treated as jointly owned based on titles and testimony. However, it reversed the portion extending the protective order, holding that the divorce judge lacked authority under 22 O.S. Supp.2008 § 60.2A to modify or extend an order from a separate protective order action with its own docket. The matter was remanded to vacate that specific provision of the decree.

family lawpropertyprocedure

In this workers' compensation case, claimant Karhleya Camp sought benefits for cumulative trauma injuries to her arms, shoulders, and neck from repetitive work tasks at Curwood Inc., after previously settling a claim for a single-event hand injury in 2009. The trial court rejected the employer's defenses, including res judicata based on the prior joint petition settlement and lack of timely notice, and awarded temporary total disability benefits and medical treatment; a three-judge panel affirmed. On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals sustained the order, holding that the earlier settlement covered only the hands from a single incident as shown by the hearing transcript, that cumulative trauma claims are distinct, and that other issues like notice were not properly preserved for review. The court applied the competent evidence standard and noted the trial tribunal's role in assessing credibility.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case concerned a dispute between Okmulgee County Rural Water District No. 2 and Beggs Public Works Authority over a 2004 water purchase contract that the Authority claimed was invalid due to its own failure to provide required notice under the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to the Authority on that ground and later denied its request for attorney fees as the prevailing party under 12 O.S. §936, citing the Authority's willful violation and equitable principles that one should not benefit from unlawful acts. On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals held that an award of attorney fees to a prevailing party in a civil action to recover on a contract for the sale of goods is mandatory under the statute and that common-law defenses such as in pari delicto do not create an exception or allow the trial court to withhold fees based on the prevailing party's conduct. The court reviewed the legal authorization for fees de novo and reversed the denial.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a guardian suing a mineral exploration company to rescind a contract in which the company purchased working interests from two trusts, alleging the company fraudulently induced the sale by concealing recent well production from the trustee. The trial court dismissed the action, finding the petition failed to state a claim and the plaintiff lacked standing or capacity to sue. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the trust beneficiary was not an express third-party beneficiary of the purchase agreement and thus had no right to seek its rescission, as any benefit to him was merely indirect. The court distinguished the trust agreement itself, which was made for the beneficiary's benefit, from the mineral sale contract, which transferred interests from the trusts to the company.

propertyprocedure

This case involved a dispute over the priority of mortgages on the Hinkles' home between Countrywide Home Loans and BancFIRST. Countrywide sought to foreclose its mortgage and argued it had priority over BancFIRST's earlier mortgage securing a line of credit. The trial court granted a directed verdict in favor of BancFIRST, finding its lien was senior, and the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that BancFIRST's mortgage retained priority for future advances since it was obligated to make them under the agreement, and Countrywide was not entitled to equitable subrogation due to its negligence in failing to secure a release of BancFIRST's mortgage.

property

This case involved a mortgage foreclosure action brought by BAC Home Loans Servicing against Ronald and Teri White, alleging default on a note secured by a mortgage on their home, with BAC claiming to hold the note and mortgage through assignments. The trial court granted summary judgment to BAC after finding it was the owner and holder of the note and mortgage. On appeal, the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals reversed the judgment and remanded for trial. The court determined that the record contained conflicting or incomplete evidence about whether the note had been properly endorsed in blank and transferred to BAC, creating a material question of fact on ownership. Under Oklahoma law, ownership of the note controls the mortgage, and summary judgment requires undisputed facts showing the plaintiff is entitled to relief as a matter of law.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a dispute over the ad valorem tax valuation of a low-income housing complex in Stillwater, Oklahoma. The county assessor valued the property higher by treating federal low-income housing tax credits as income attributable to the property, while the owner argued the credits were intangible personal property exempt from taxation under the Oklahoma Constitution. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to the owner, ruling the credits were exempt and not to be included as income, leading to an agreed lower valuation. On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, holding that the tax credits constitute a financing subsidy rather than income and qualify as exempt "credits" under Article X, Section 6A of the Oklahoma Constitution. The court reasoned that the credits belong to investors, not the land itself, and are not defined by statute as a component of real property.

taxesproperty

This case involves a dispute over fees and compensation awarded to First National Bank & Trust Company of Chickasha for its service as constructive trustee and special administrator in the probate of Hattie K. Davis's estate. After a will contest led to the invalidation of certain prior orders due to fraud, the bank filed accountings and sought payment for its services and attorney fees; the personal representative (the decedent's stepson) objected, alleging misconduct and improper performance. The trial court awarded the bank approximately $18,066 in compensation, over $86,000 in attorney fees and costs, and an expert witness fee, while also approving the final account and granting discharge. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, holding that the awards were supported by the evidence, including a special master's verification that all assets were accounted for, and that there was no abuse of discretion in reimbursing the bank's reasonable and necessary expenses under probate statutes.

propertyprocedure

The case involved an employee suing his employer, a restaurant management company, for underpayment of minimum wage under the Oklahoma Minimum Wage Act. The trial court granted summary judgment to the employer, and the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that the Oklahoma Act excludes employers who are subject to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and are paying the minimum wage required by that act; since the employer met the FLSA requirements for an enterprise engaged in commerce with over $500,000 in sales and paid the federal tipped minimum wage, it was not covered by the state act.

labor & employment

In this workers' compensation case, claimant Murlyn Pool alleged a back injury sustained while working as a welder for GEFCO on April 29, 2009, but did not notify the employer until June 30, 2009. Because notice was not given within thirty days, a statutory rebuttable presumption arose that the injury was not work-related. The trial court awarded temporary total disability benefits and treatment, a three-judge panel affirmed after finding the presumption had been overcome by a preponderance of the evidence, and the Court of Civil Appeals sustained that decision. The court held that the claimant's testimony and the evaluating physician's report constituted competent evidence showing the injury arose out of and in the course of employment, satisfying the claimant's ordinary burden of proof under the statute.

labor & employment

This case involved the State of Oklahoma seeking to terminate a mother's parental rights to her child B.C. after the child was adjudicated deprived due to neglect and emotional abuse, with the mother failing to correct conditions outlined in an individualized service plan. A jury returned a verdict in favor of termination on grounds that the mother failed to correct the deprived conditions, and the trial court entered judgment accordingly. On appeal, the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals reversed the termination order and remanded for a new trial. The court reasoned that the jury instructions and verdict did not identify the specific condition from the ISP that the mother allegedly failed to correct, as required by statute for termination under 10A O.S. § 1-4-904(B)(5), and the amended order could not cure the lack of findings in the record.

family lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute between Chaparral Energy and Pioneer Exploration over a historic gas imbalance from two wells that arose before Chaparral acquired its interests from a prior owner. Chaparral sued for conversion, among other claims, alleging that Pioneer wrongfully eliminated the imbalance from its records rather than transferring it. The trial court granted summary judgment to Chaparral on the conversion claim and awarded damages based on the gas's value at the time the claim accrued. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that the imbalance was an accounting entry rather than tangible personal property subject to conversion, and that the proper remedies for an overproduced cotenant's failure to account were equitable gas balancing or an accounting action.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

The case involved Mary Lou Hummer challenging the Oklahoma Board of Agriculture's grant of a license to Land O'Lakes to construct and operate a concentrated swine feeding operation nursery in Beaver County, even though the applicant planned to possibly sell the facility later to another operator. The district court affirmed the Board's decision, and the Court of Civil Appeals upheld that ruling on appeal. The court reasoned that the Oklahoma Swine Feeding Operations Act does not prohibit licensing an applicant intending to sell after construction, that the provided notice accurately identified the current applicant and owner without being misleading, and that constitutional challenges to the license transfer process were hypothetical and not ripe for review.

business & regulatoryenvironment

The case involved Jack Michael Lamb, a certified nurse aide and former CEO of a long-term care facility, appealing the Oklahoma State Department of Health's decision to record findings of mistreatment and abuse of a resident in the Nurse Aide Registry under federal Medicare and Medicaid requirements. Lamb contested the Department's jurisdiction, arguing it failed to provide the required written notice of the investigation within ten working days of its completion as mandated by 42 C.F.R. § 488.335. The trial court affirmed the Department's action, but the Court of Civil Appeals reversed, holding that the trial court should have remanded the case to the Department for further evidence on when the investigation concluded and notice was given, due to inconsistencies in the record about the timing and process.

healthcareprocedure

In Davis v. Mayberry, the case involved a dispute over title to a 160-acre tract of restricted Indian land in Creek County, Oklahoma, where plaintiff L.G. Sam Davis sought to quiet title and partition the property. Appellant Donal Mayberry had purchased a tax sale certificate for an 11/60 undivided interest in 1994 and obtained a certificate tax deed in 1997 without providing the required notice to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to the Secretary of the Interior, ruling the tax deed void under Section 6(e) of the 1947 Act because no 90-day registered mail notice of the tax sale had been sent to the BIA as shown in county or federal records. After trial, the court also rejected the appellants' adverse possession claim for lack of clear and convincing evidence of the required elements of possession. The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the judgment declaring the appellees the rightful owners and cancelling the appellants' claims.

propertytaxesfederal power

This case involves a dispute under Oklahoma's Surface Damages Act between Bays Exploration, Inc., an oil and gas company, and Douglas Jones, the owner of farmland where Bays drilled a well. After appraisers assessed damages at $12,000 and a jury awarded Jones $40,000, the trial court initially denied attorney fees, but on appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals directed an award of fees, which the trial court then granted totaling over $121,000 including appellate fees. Bays appealed the fee award, arguing against its validity under the Act and related statutes. The Court of Appeals affirmed the award, holding that the law of the case doctrine precluded reconsideration of issues already decided in the prior appeal regarding the entitlement to attorney fees and costs.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a workers' compensation claim by Annette Triplett against Mystaf Medical and its insurer after she slipped and fell on a slick floor at her workplace, injuring her back, knee, and side. The Workers' Compensation Court initially denied her claim, finding her smoke break was a personal errand not covered by employment. On review, the Court of Civil Appeals vacated the order, holding that the injuries arose out of and in the course of her employment because they occurred on the employer's premises while she was returning to her workspace after arriving early and turning on her computer, consistent with precedents treating on-premises injuries as compensable even when involving brief personal activities like smoking.

labor & employment