Larry E. Joplin

The case involved the termination of parental rights of Christopher and Huyen Cleveland to their child H.T., based on the prior termination of their rights to four older siblings who had been adjudicated deprived due to physical abuse, and the parents' alleged failure to correct the underlying conditions. The trial court found H.T. deprived and terminated the parents' rights under Oklahoma law allowing termination when rights to another child have been terminated and conditions remain uncorrected. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, holding that clear and convincing evidence supported the findings, including the parents' incomplete counseling and classes and their denial of any ongoing need for services. The court rejected challenges regarding evidentiary sufficiency, severance of trials, comments on invocation of Fifth Amendment rights, denial of transcripts, and use of prior testimony in place of live child witnesses.

family law

The case involved plaintiffs who obtained a loan from American General Financial Services secured by two vehicles and later received a lien release on one truck after a partial payment. After the truck was repossessed, the plaintiffs sued the lender and its recovery agent for conversion, negligence, trespass to chattels, and wrongful repossession. The trial court denied the defendants' motion to compel arbitration under the loan agreement, but the Court of Civil Appeals reversed, holding that the agreement's broad arbitration provisions and delegation clause covered the claims and defenses such as waiver or satisfaction, requiring the matter to be referred to arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act.

business & regulatoryprocedureproperty

In Pounders v. Pounders, a husband appealed a divorce court's order dividing marital property and awarding his wife about $22,400 in alimony to offset marital funds used during the marriage to pay his child support obligations from a prior marriage. The wife had been aware of and sometimes facilitated those payments. The court reversed the alimony award, holding that precedents allowing restitutionary alimony apply only when one spouse funds the other's professional education and the couple divorces shortly after completion, not to repayment of pre-existing support debts, especially where the wife consented. It affirmed the trial court's decision to award the wife her claims for unpaid wages from former employers but assign them no value, as the husband provided no evidence of their worth or marital portion.

family lawproperty

This case involved a condemnation action by the Oklahoma Department of Transportation to acquire about five acres of the Sherrills' thirty-two-acre tract for a highway interchange. At trial, the jury awarded compensation of $7,000 per acre, which the trial court converted to a total judgment of $39,340 without recalling the jury; DOT moved for a mistrial, arguing the per-acre verdict violated the instruction requiring a single sum and that the landowners' testimony about sales of dissimilar parcels should have been excluded. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, holding that any defect in verdict form was not fundamental error and that the trial court acted within its discretion in admitting the landowners' valuation testimony, which the jury apparently discounted given the verdict's position between the parties' expert appraisals.

propertyprocedure

The case involved Beverly Enterprises suing Devine Convalescent Care Center, a Texas entity, and its president Samuel Jewell for $27,820.80 allegedly owed under a five-year lease for a Texas nursing home facility and a related guarantee. Beverly filed the action in Murray County, Oklahoma, where Jewell resided and where the lease listed addresses for both defendants. The defendants specially appeared and moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue, citing Devine's Texas principal place of business and a forum-selection clause in the guarantee designating Texas courts. The trial court granted the motion and transferred the case to Medina County, Texas. On appeal, the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals reviewed the jurisdictional issue de novo under the state's long-arm statute, considering whether the defendants had sufficient minimum contacts with Oklahoma to satisfy due process and whether the forum-selection clause required litigation in Texas.

procedurebusiness & regulatoryhealthcare

This case involved the State of Oklahoma seeking to terminate Michele Wigington's parental rights to her four children after they were adjudicated deprived due to sexual abuse, exposure to pornography, and substance abuse, with the children placed in foster care. The trial court, following a jury verdict, terminated her rights on the ground that the children had been in foster care for fifteen of the most recent twenty-two months and she had failed to complete a treatment plan, citing the now-repealed 10 O.S. § 7006-1.1(A)(15). The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the judgment, holding that instructing the jury on a statutory ground repealed before the termination motion was filed constituted fundamental error, as termination must rest on currently valid statutory grounds, and the alternative ground of failure to correct conditions was not presented to the jury. The matter was remanded for further proceedings without prejudice to reasserting a valid ground.

family lawprocedure

This case involved a foreclosure action in which F & M Bank sought to enforce its mortgage on property purchased by the Biddles, while Gardner Construction asserted a mechanic's and materialman's lien for unpaid construction work. The bank recorded its mortgage in June 2008 after using loan proceeds to acquire the land, and Gardner began work earlier but recorded its lien in November 2009. The trial court granted summary judgment to F & M, finding its mortgage superior to Gardner's lien and ordering foreclosure. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the mortgage qualified as a purchase money mortgage under 42 O.S. § 16, which grants it priority over liens arising from contracts with the purchaser, even if work began before recording. The decision relied on the statutory preference for purchase money mortgages and undisputed facts showing the loan enabled both the purchase and construction.

property

The case involved Scanline Medical's breach of contract claim against former sales representative Chris Brooks, alleging violation of non-competition clauses in two Independent Sales Representative Agreements for medical products. The trial court granted summary judgment to Brooks, and the appellate court affirmed. The court held that the non-compete provisions were unenforceable because they broadly prohibited Brooks from selling any competitive medical devices or holding financial interests in such businesses, exceeding the limits permitted under Oklahoma statutes (15 O.S. §§ 217 and 219A), which allow only restrictions on directly soliciting former customers but bar broader bans on engaging in similar work.

business & regulatorylabor & employment

In this case, Maxxum Construction sued First Commercial Bank to recover unpaid amounts for construction work on a restaurant, alleging both a guarantee by the bank and unjust enrichment. The trial court dismissed the claims, and the bank sought attorney fees as the prevailing party under Oklahoma statute 12 O.S. § 936, which allows such fees in actions to recover for labor or services. Maxxum argued that fees were not available in this equitable unjust enrichment action absent bad faith. The appellate court affirmed the fee award, reasoning that the underlying nature of the suit was to recover for unpaid labor and services, making the statute applicable regardless of the equitable theory asserted.

business & regulatorylabor & employmentprocedure

The case involved a workers' compensation claim by Levonna Corley against her employer, American Residential Community, and its insurer after she fell at work in August 2008 and sustained a soft tissue injury to her right ankle. The trial court denied permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits, finding only a soft tissue injury with no permanent impairment, but a three-judge panel reversed and awarded 10% PPD to the right foot. On appeal, the employer argued that state law limited recovery for soft tissue injuries to medical care and temporary total disability unless objective medical evidence showed a permanent anatomical abnormality, and that any PPD was capped at eight weeks. The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals sustained the panel's award, holding that the claimant's medical report documenting a loss of range of motion rated under the AMA Guides constituted competent objective evidence of a ratable permanent anatomical abnormality under 85 O.S. Supp.2007 § 22(8)(d).

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved a dispute over whether an architectural firm, PSA-Dewberry, Inc., could enforce a mechanic's and materialman's lien against property after providing over $500,000 in design services for a proposed shopping mall that was never built. The developer defaulted on a $9 million loan from Stillwater National Bank & Trust Company, conveyed the undeveloped land to the Bank in lieu of foreclosure, and the Bank sued to quiet title. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Bank, finding the lien invalid, and denied reconsideration; the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. The court held that under 42 O.S. § 141 and precedent such as Stern v. Great Plains Federal Savings and Loan Ass'n., an architect's lien requires actual improvement to the land pursuant to the plans, which did not occur here, and noted a possible timeliness issue with the lien filing.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved a teacher, Naney DeHart, who sued Tulsa Public Schools after her employment ended in January 2008, claiming breach of contract, violations of the Teacher Due Process Act of 1990 (70 O.S. §§ 6-101.23(F), (G), and (H)), and denial of due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. DeHart argued that her prior employment, multiple temporary contracts totaling five semesters, and an alleged May 2007 one-year contract entitled her to career teacher status with continuing contract protections, despite signing three separate temporary contracts (including one for a single semester) that explicitly noted their temporary nature. The trial court granted summary judgment to the school district, finding that DeHart had been employed under three distinct temporary contracts with breaks in service that complied with statutory limits on consecutive semesters, that adequate written disclosures were provided in each contract, that no estoppel applied against the district because the school board had approved only the temporary semester contract, and that she therefore lacked career status and associated due process protections. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the statute's three-semester limit applied only to consecutive periods without a break rather than imposing a lifetime cap, that the contracts met disclosure requirements, and that the principal lacked authority to bind the district without board approval.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case concerned the Oklahoma Department of Transportation's (ODOT) administrative debarment of contractor George Paul Glover and his company CGlover Construction from participating in state highway contracts. After Glover and employees pleaded nolo contendere to conspiracy to defraud the state and related charges involving substitution of unapproved materials in paving projects, ODOT imposed a ten-year debarment following an administrative hearing. The trial court first modified the term to three-and-a-half years and then vacated the debarment entirely on grounds that the agency's regulations did not authorize it based on nolo pleas at the relevant time. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that state law and ODOT regulations permitted debarment for such pleas, that the administrative findings were supported by the record and not arbitrary, and that no estoppel or delay barred the action. The court remanded with instructions to reinstate the ten-year debarment order.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Bank of Oklahoma's lawsuit against PriceWaterhouseCoopers for professional negligence in auditing the financial statements of the Tulsa Airport Improvements Trust, which allegedly misclassified assets as unrestricted. BOK claimed it relied on those statements when extending a $30 million loan to support a transaction with Great Plains Airlines, and that it suffered losses after the Trust failed to fulfill its purchase obligation under a support agreement following the airline's default. The trial court granted summary judgment to PWC, and the appellate court affirmed. The court held that BOK's claim was barred by the two-year statute of limitations because BOK knew of its injury by July 22, 2004, but did not sue until August 2006. It further ruled that PWC owed no duty to BOK under Oklahoma law, as PWC had not been informed that its audits would be used for this specific loan transaction and general knowledge of possible reliance by third parties was insufficient.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case concerns a mother's appeal from a trial court order modifying the parties' 1998 divorce decree by awarding primary custody of the children to the father and setting child support obligations. The mother argued that the court improperly calculated the father's income for support purposes despite his invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege regarding his tax returns, and that it improperly awarded the father a judgment for an unpaid child support arrearage that he had never requested in his pleadings or at trial. The court affirmed the custody modification and the child support calculation, which relied on the father's testimony about his average annual earnings of $25,000, finding no abuse of discretion. It reversed the arrearage judgment, however, because the mother received no notice or opportunity to contest the issue and because no temporary support order had been entered, making such a judgment unauthorized under Oklahoma law.

family lawprocedure

The case involved a minor student with disabilities, through her mother, suing her public school district for a declaratory judgment and injunction, alleging that the district's use of a seclusion and restraint room for disabled children violated Oklahoma's mental health statutes and regulations under Title 43A. The trial court granted the district's motion to dismiss, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. The appellate court held that the Oklahoma Mental Health Law governs only designated state mental health facilities charged with in-patient care and treatment of the mentally ill, not public schools, and therefore the statutes did not apply to the defendant district. The court rejected arguments that administrative exhaustion under the IDEA was required or that a settlement mooted the appeal on the merits of statutory applicability.

civil rightsprocedure

In Tennell v. Horsehead Corp., claimant Daniel Ben Tennell sought workers' compensation benefits for injuries he initially reported as resulting from a slip-and-fall at work with Horsehead Corporation. Evidence showed the injuries actually occurred during an unwitnessed fight with a co-employee, after which the two conspired to file a false claim to protect the co-employee's job. The trial court denied the claim, finding neither party credible due to the misrepresentation and determining the incident involved mutual combat, and a three-judge panel affirmed. On appeal, the court applied the 'any competent evidence' standard of review based on the law in effect at the time of injury and sustained the denial, citing testimony that Tennell started the fight and the loss of credibility from the cover-up. The court also addressed the applicable appellate standard for workers' compensation cases.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved Delaware grandparents petitioning to adopt their grandchild in Oklahoma after the biological parents' rights were terminated in a deprived child proceeding, with the Department of Human Services (DHS) moving to dismiss in favor of foster parents who had cared for the child since 2006. The trial court dismissed the grandparents' petition following a hearing limited to legal jurisdiction questions, relying instead on the deprived proceeding record, a best interests analysis, and the passage of time to challenge DHS placement decisions. On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals reviewed the dismissal de novo and reversed, finding the trial court erred by exceeding the hearing's scope to make a best interests determination, misapplying statutes on jurisdiction and adoption priorities under 10 O.S. § 21.1 and related provisions, and improperly treating DHS consent as conclusive without proper process. The court also noted that notice issues to DHS did not warrant dismissal given actual participation and that grandparents retained eligibility arguments under applicable adoption laws, including ICPC requirements.

family lawprocedure

In State v. Anderson, the State appealed a trial court order that vacated a bond forfeiture and ordered return of $45,000 paid by the bondsman after the defendant failed to appear for a preliminary hearing in a criminal case involving charges of obtaining property by trick or deception. The defendant was later located and arrested, prompting the bondsman to seek relief from the forfeiture more than a year after payment. The appellate court reversed, holding that under 59 O.S. Supp. 2002 § 1332, a bondsman must file a motion for remitter within 180 days after payment to reopen the forfeiture judgment, and failure to meet this deadline extinguishes the right to relief regardless of later return of the defendant. The court reasoned that the statutory time limit is a substantive requirement based on legislative intent to promote finality and timely prosecution of such claims, applying de novo review to the statutory construction while noting the burden on the bondsman to show grounds for relief.

criminal lawprocedure

Diamond Sevens, L.L.C. sued Intelligent Home Automation, Inc. (IHA) in Tulsa County for breach of contract, breach of warranty, revocation of acceptance, and negligence arising from installation of a home automation system during construction of a residence. IHA moved to compel arbitration and to dismiss, arguing that the general contractor Larkin had apparent authority to bind Diamond Sevens to a contract containing an arbitration clause and a Payne County venue provision, or that Diamond Sevens had ratified the contract. The trial court denied both motions, finding no agency relationship authorizing Larkin to bind Diamond Sevens, no ratification, and therefore no arbitration or venue agreement between Diamond Sevens and IHA. On appeal, the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, holding that the record supported the trial court's determinations that Larkin acted only as general contractor, that Diamond Sevens was not a party to the IHA contract, and that no basis existed for compelling arbitration or enforcing the venue clause.

business & regulatoryprocedure