William C. Hetherington jr

This case involved the State of Oklahoma seeking to terminate the parental rights of Rebecca Mireles (Mother) and James Moody (Father) regarding their child L.M., who had been adjudicated deprived due to unsafe living conditions, Mother's mental health issues, and related concerns. A jury found that Mother had a mental illness and that both parents failed to correct the conditions leading to L.M.'s deprived status, leading the trial court to terminate their rights. On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals reversed the termination order as to Mother and remanded for a new trial due to errors in the proceedings, while affirming the order as to Father because it was supported by clear and convincing evidence, though it remanded to address a deficiency in the order. The court applied the clear and convincing evidence standard for parental termination cases, reviewing the record for whether a factfinder could form a firm belief in the grounds for termination.

family law

In Barnett v. Simmons, Rock Oil appealed the trial court's denial of attorney fees and costs in discovery sanction proceedings arising from a lawsuit in which Barnett alleged unpaid royalties and other claims related to an oil lease operated by Rock Oil. After Barnett's computer hard drive was altered following a court order compelling production of electronic files, the trial court found he had violated the order and his duty to preserve evidence but determined he was substantially justified in his actions and that an award of fees would be unjust. The appellate court reviewed the record under an abuse of discretion standard and affirmed the denial, holding that the trial court's ruling was not contrary to the weight of the evidence or governing law.

procedureproperty

In Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London v. B3, Inc., the insurer filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that its commercial general liability policy issued to B3 provided no coverage for liability arising from a lawsuit by landowners alleging property and water damage from the discharge of wastewater containing sewage and contaminants during improvements to a municipal wastewater treatment plant. B3 and its subcontractor NRS had been hired to perform the work, which involved pumping from sewage lagoons, and NRS claimed it was entitled to coverage as a third-party beneficiary. The trial court granted summary judgment to the insurer based on the policy's total pollution exclusion, and the appellate court affirmed, concluding the exclusion was unambiguous on its face, the discharged materials met the policy's definition of pollutants, and the underlying claims fell squarely within the excluded risks.

business & regulatoryenvironmentproperty

This case involved a dispute over the appointment of a guardian for V. Inez Songer, an incapacitated adult. Her son, Jimmy Songer, objected to a petition by Steve and Amber Austin (grandchildren through another relative) seeking guardianship after the ward moved in with them, and he sought appointment for himself instead. The trial court granted guardianship to the Austins following a hearing. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, holding that while 30 O.S. § 3-104(A) provides statutory priorities for guardian selection, the statute does not require strict adherence without considering the ward's best interests under § 3-104(C), and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the evidence of care and suitability.

family lawprocedure

The case involved Oklahoma taxpayers Joseph and Margaret Grasso protesting additional state income tax assessments for 2003 through 2006, primarily concerning whether the husband's income from Florida should be included on their Oklahoma returns given his claimed non-resident status. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the Tax Commission's finding that the husband was domiciled in Florida but reversed its determination that the couple's joint Oklahoma tax returns required inclusion of the husband's Florida income. The court reasoned that the Tax Commission's reliance on joint filing as a basis for taxation constituted a new issue raised without proper notice, violating procedural due process, and lacked supporting evidence in the record. The matter was remanded for further proceedings on issues including potential refunds and amendments to returns.

taxesprocedure

This case involved Oklahoma taxpayers Joseph and Margaret Grasso challenging additional state income tax assessments by the Oklahoma Tax Commission for tax years 2003-2006, primarily over whether the husband's Florida income could be taxed by Oklahoma. The Tax Commission had denied their protest after determining the couple's filing of joint Oklahoma returns required inclusion of the husband's income despite his claimed non-resident status. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the Commission's finding that the husband's domicile was Florida but reversed its ruling on the joint-return issue, holding that the Commission had improperly raised it as a new issue without notice, violating procedural due process, and that the determination lacked evidentiary support; as a result, the assessments were erroneous, including on statute-of-limitations grounds for 2003. The matter was remanded for further proceedings on related claims such as refunds and amended returns.

taxesprocedure

This case involved investors who sued Archway Technology Partners and MF Global as aiders and abettors of a fraudulent hedge fund scheme run by Mark Trimble and Phidippides Capital Management under Oklahoma's Uniform Securities Act. The trial court dismissed the claims against both defendants on grounds including federal preemption, lack of personal jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, and improper venue. On appeal, the court affirmed dismissal of the claims against MF Global because they were preempted by federal commodities law, but reversed as to Archway, finding that some investments fell under the state securities act, that the petition alleged sufficient facts for jurisdiction and fraud with particularity, and that further proceedings were needed. The core reasoning centered on distinguishing the scope of federal preemption from state law claims and assessing minimum contacts and pleading standards for each defendant separately.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

This case involves a former career employee of the Oklahoma Department of Rehabilitative Services who sued the agency and his supervisor, Linda Parker, in both her official and individual capacities, alleging the torts of conversion, fraud/deceit, and intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from opposition to his internal grievance for a higher position. The trial court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss under 12 O.S. § 2012(B)(6), relying on precedents holding that the Oklahoma Personnel Act provides an adequate statutory remedy barring such tort claims. On appeal, the court affirmed dismissal as to the agency and Parker in her official capacity but reversed as to Parker in her individual capacity, reasoning that the statutory remedy bar from McCrady I and II applies to claims against the state or officials in their official roles but does not preclude suits against individuals personally. The decision was based on de novo review of the petition's legal sufficiency, limited to the record before the trial court after striking non-compliant briefs.

labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

This case involved a post-dissolution dispute over modification of visitation and child support in which the mother held sole legal custody of the three children and the father sought expanded visitation, including a shared parenting schedule. The trial court granted the father extended visitation every other weekend plus make-up time and ordered the mother to pay $6,000 of his attorney fees. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed both orders, concluding that the trial court misinterpreted 43 O.S. Supp.2002 § 113 by refusing to allow the parties' fourteen-year-old son to express his preference as to periods of visitation, which constituted legal error requiring remand for compliance with the statute.

family lawprocedure

This case involves a workers' compensation claim by Stephen Messer against his employer Oklahoma Natural Gas for injuries sustained in work-related accidents in 2003 and 2004, including requests for treatment of a consequential psychological overlay that developed later. The Workers' Compensation Court authorized treatment for the psychological injury after a second trial and rejected the employer's res judicata defense based on a prior 2007 order that had denied such injury. The court reasoned that the psychological condition evolved after the initial trial due to chronic pain and related effects from the compensable physical injuries, supported by new medical evidence from the claimant's experts. The appellate court sustained the order, finding it neither contrary to law nor unsupported by competent evidence.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved a dispute between two electric utility providers in Duncan, Oklahoma, where Public Service Company of Oklahoma (PSO) had long provided service to a manufacturing facility under a franchise. After the facility changed hands, Duncan Public Utilities Authority (DP&L) disconnected PSO's service over a weekend without PSO's consent and began providing service itself, prompting PSO to sue for declaratory and injunctive relief under state statutes. The trial court granted a temporary injunction barring DP&L from providing service and ordering restoration to PSO. On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, finding violations of 11 O.S. § 21-121 and 17 O.S. § 190.7, which require mutual written consent for any change in electric service providers, and determining that such a statutory violation established irreparable harm warranting injunctive relief; constitutional challenges were not addressed due to lack of required notice to the Attorney General.

business & regulatory

This case involved an appeal by Chad Gottfried challenging an Oklahoma trial court order that terminated his parental rights to L.D.B. and declared the child eligible for adoption without his consent, based on a petition filed by Crisis Pregnancy Outreach, Inc. under statutes allowing termination when a child born out of wedlock is placed for adoption within 90 days of birth and the father fails to provide support to the mother during pregnancy or exercise other parental duties. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court's findings, which were supported by clear and convincing evidence that Gottfried had not contributed financial or other support during the pregnancy, made only minimal efforts to locate the mother or establish paternity beforehand, and failed to prove defenses such as being denied the opportunity to exercise rights. The court held that these facts satisfied the statutory grounds for proceeding with adoption without consent and did not reach issues related to parallel Arkansas adoption proceedings.

family law

This case involved post-decree contempt proceedings in which the ex-wife sought to hold the ex-husband in indirect contempt for allegedly willful nonpayment of child support, child-related expenses, and attorney fees under their 2006 agreed divorce decree. The trial court found the ex-husband guilty, sentenced him to six months in jail subject to a purge fee of over $20,000, and later awarded the ex-wife attorney fees. On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals reversed, holding that the trial court committed legal errors by basing the contempt finding on pre-decree temporary obligations that had merged into and were extinguished by the final decree, as well as on post-decree amounts not properly included in the contempt application or arising under subsequent DHS orders. The court remanded with instructions to dismiss the contempt proceeding.

family lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute over a clause in a real estate sales contract between seller Ronald Stoll and buyers Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang, who purchased land to operate chicken houses. The clause required the buyers to deliver all chicken litter produced on the property to Stoll for thirty years at no cost, which Stoll sought to enforce after discovering the buyers had sold some litter. The trial court granted summary judgment to the buyers, finding the clause unconscionable as a matter of law, and the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that the buyers, who had limited English proficiency and education, received no consideration for the clause, which imposed costs far exceeding the land's value and unrelated to the property itself, shocking the conscience under contract principles.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case concerned a law firm, Baer, Timberlake, Coulson & Cates, P.C., which had represented a mortgage lender in a foreclosure action against Rahmana Warren and later sued her individually to recover a roughly $10,000 shortfall on the loan payoff after the property was sold. Warren had relied on a payoff quote containing an addition error, resulting in an underpayment at closing that was transmitted to the lender's servicer; she argued the payment constituted an accord and satisfaction that discharged the debt. The trial court entered judgment for Baer, and the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, holding that the ruling was supported by competent evidence, involved no error of law, and did not reflect an abuse of discretion in rejecting the accord-and-satisfaction defense or in allowing Baer to pursue the deficiency.

propertyprocedure

The case involved plaintiff David Friedman suing defendant Florence Louise Gavigno for fraudulent conveyance after her son transferred his interest in their jointly owned Oklahoma residence to her without value while insolvent. The trial court granted summary judgment in Friedman's favor on that claim when Gavigno did not respond or appear at the hearing, and later denied her term-time motion to vacate the judgment. On appeal, the court affirmed the denial, holding that the judgment was an adjudication on the merits rather than a default and that Gavigno had not shown irregularity or other cause warranting vacation under the applicable statutes.

propertyprocedure

This case concerned a property owner's lawsuit seeking to enjoin the City of Enid from demolishing a downtown building that the city had declared dilapidated after multiple hearings. The owner argued the structure could be repaired and challenged the constitutionality of the governing statute on due process and vested rights grounds. The trial court found the city had proven the building met the statutory definition of dilapidated and posed a hazard to public health, safety, and welfare, then ordered demolition. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that competent evidence supported the finding of decay and ongoing risk, the owner had received ample notice and hearings satisfying procedural due process, and the statute was a valid exercise of police power.

propertycivil rightsprocedure

The case involved a breach of contract claim by the Beavers against Byers over the purchase of personal property, in which the trial court ruled for the Beavers, awarded them $3,605 in damages plus interest and costs, denied Byers' counterclaim, and later granted $13,034 in attorney fees and costs after a hearing. Byers appealed both the underlying judgment and the fee award. The Court of Civil Appeals dismissed the appeal of the September 24, 2008 judgment as untimely because it was a final order resolving all claims and the petition in error was filed more than 30 days later, with motions for attorney fees not extending the deadline under Oklahoma law. The court found the appeal of the fee award timely from the December 29, 2008 order and affirmed it, holding that the trial court's Burk analysis and findings on the reasonableness of the hours and rate were supported by the record and stipulations.

procedureproperty

In Springer v. Richardson Law Firm, plaintiff Lindsey Springer sued the defendants (a law firm and its attorneys) for defamation, libel, and slander, alleging that false statements about him in a prior civil petition they filed on behalf of clients were harmful to him. The trial court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim and denied Springer's motion for default judgment. On appeal, the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, holding that the statements were made in the course of a judicial proceeding and were therefore absolutely privileged under 12 O.S. § 1443.1, making them immune from a defamation action regardless of their truth or falsity. The court further found the statements relevant to the underlying litigation and rejected Springer's constitutional arguments and request for default judgment.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In Young v. Chappell, the dispute arose after the sale of a farm when the parties entered a separate contract addressing leftover hay on the property and division of proceeds from a prior oil and gas easement; the written agreement included an interlineation allowing the buyers to count and inspect the hay before purchase, and the buyers later rejected the hay as lower quality than represented. The trial court entered judgment for the Chappells, finding the contract void and ordering Young to remove the hay, with no monetary awards to either side. On appeal, the court affirmed the outcome for the Chappells but held that the contract was not void, instead enforceable yet subject to the buyers' right to reject based on the inspection term, which was supported by competent evidence of the parties' intent and the seller's representations to facilitate closing the land sale. The court distinguished between void contracts and those merely voidable due to fraud in the inducement, finding the latter applied here without disturbing the trial court's factual findings on witness credibility and evidence weight.

propertytorts & liability