John F. Reif

This case involved a contract dispute between convenience store owner Mike Batman and fuel distributor Metro Petroleum over the meaning of the contract's "actual delivered cost price of fuel," specifically whether it included a 1% early-payment discount Metro received from the refinery. After the Court of Civil Appeals remanded for trial, a jury found for Metro, and the trial court entered judgment on the verdict and awarded Metro prevailing-party attorney fees. On appeal, Batman argued the contract should be construed against Metro as the party that allegedly caused any ambiguity and raised claims of jury prejudice, but the court affirmed the judgment and fee award. The court held that the jury instructions correctly directed the jury to determine the parties' intent from the contract language and circumstances, with Batman bearing the burden of proof, and that the rule construing ambiguity against the drafter applies only if intent cannot otherwise be resolved.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a workers' compensation claim by Jessica Urrutia for a soft tissue injury, where she sought temporary partial disability benefits beyond the eight weeks of temporary total disability provided under 85 O.S. Supp.2006 § 22(8). The court affirmed the award limiting compensation to the statutory eight weeks, rejecting her arguments that she should receive additional benefits upon release for light duty and that the limitation violated due process and equal protection. The reasoning is that soft tissue injuries are treated as specific injuries under the statute, similar to hernias, making the compensation exclusive and not subject to other provisions for temporary partial disability. The court noted that the legislature explicitly excepted such injuries from temporary partial disability awards and that differential treatment of scheduled injuries is not unconstitutional.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involved a dispute over the fair cash value of 45.5 miles of pipeline in Seminole County, Oklahoma, for 2003 ad valorem property tax purposes. The pipeline owner, Cimmarron Transportation, argued for a valuation based on its January 2002 purchase price of a larger pipeline package, while the county assessor and Board of Equalization used a replacement cost less depreciation method, resulting in a higher assessed value. After a trial de novo, the district court upheld the board's replacement cost valuation. On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals reversed, holding that Oklahoma law requires the use of a recent bona fide arms-length sale price as controlling evidence of fair cash value absent special depressing circumstances, and determined that a resale of part of the pipeline on the same day as the original purchase at $390 per mile provided the appropriate market-based value for the entire pipeline. The court remanded with directions to assess the pipeline at a total value of $18,135.

taxesproperty

This case involved an appeal by defendants challenging the trial court's grant of a new trial to plaintiffs after a jury verdict for defendants in what appears to be a negligence action. The motion for new trial was based on a juror's unauthorized internet research on case-related matters, which the trial court found to be misconduct after questioning jurors; the court had initially denied the motion but later vacated that denial and granted the new trial. Defendants argued the trial court lacked jurisdiction due to a pending appeal and a concurrent motion to disqualify the judge, and that the record did not support misconduct. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court retained authority under 12 O.S. § 1031.1 to reconsider its order on the new trial motion despite the appeal, and that evidence reasonably supported the finding of juror misconduct affecting a key issue.

proceduretorts & liability

This case arises from a dispute over unpaid commissions and deferred compensation after termination of a general agency agreement between Stickney and Kansas City Life Insurance Company. Following an earlier appeal that dismissed tort claims and remanded the contract claim for determination of any earned but unpaid commissions, the trial court on remand awarded partial first-year commissions but denied additional deferred compensation, prejudgment interest, and attorney fees. The appellate court ruled it could not revisit the prior decision under law-of-the-case principles, affirmed the damages measure based on compensation earned during the contract term, but modified the award to include the full amount of first-year commissions and additional deferred compensation with prejudgment interest, reversed the denial of attorney fees, and remanded for calculation of a reasonable fee.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case arose from a condemnation action in which the Oklahoma Department of Transportation acquired land from Allied Tower Company, Inc., leading to disputes over compensation for a spooling machine that became unusable and over attorney fees. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the jury's verdict awarding Allied $21,624 in compensation, holding that any error in admitting an engineer's testimony on the machine's $2,500 salvage value was speculative and did not provide grounds to disturb the general verdict, as the jury likely used it to offset costs to cure rather than add separate damages. On the attorney fee issue, the court reversed the trial court's award based on Burk factors and remanded with directions to award fees according to Allied's contractual obligation to its attorneys ($43,108), unless shown to be excessive, consistent with 27 O.S.2001 § 11 and prior precedent emphasizing full compensation in eminent domain. The court also granted Allied's request for appellate attorney fees to be determined on remand.

propertyprocedure

This case arose from post-decree proceedings in which the wife sought to vacate a divorce decree obtained via a consent petition, entry of appearance, and decree signed by both parties. The parties had agreed to divorce and transfer nearly all marital assets to the husband to qualify the wife for Medicaid nursing home benefits due to her multiple sclerosis, while intending to continue living together in another county, despite representing incompatibility as the ground for divorce and that the husband resided in the filing county. The trial court vacated the decree on fraud grounds, including the false residency claim and collusion to misrepresent incompatibility, and dismissed the case. The appellate court affirmed, ruling that the misrepresentations of residency and incompatibility constituted fraud on the court that could not be cured by the parties' waivers or agreements.

family law

This case arose from a mortgage foreclosure action filed by Bankers Trust against Joy R. Brown after she defaulted on payments for a high-interest loan originated by Saxon Mortgage on her Tulsa home. Brown asserted counterclaims and cross-claims against the lenders alleging predatory lending through reverse redlining, negligence, fraud, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, claiming the loan had high costs and interest that the lenders knew she could not repay. The trial court dismissed all of her claims on motions by the lenders. On appeal, the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals affirmed dismissal of the fraud and implied covenant claims but reversed dismissal of the predatory lending claim under the federal Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act, holding that Brown had sufficiently pleaded a violation by alleging extension of credit based on collateral without regard to repayment ability.

propertybusiness & regulatorycivil rights

This case involved claims by Tanique, Inc. and its employee Rob Collins against the State of Oklahoma alleging civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and various torts, based on alleged falsehoods in an affidavit for a search warrant at their business, statements made to customers and media about seized products including ephedrine, and statements about Collins's ownership role. Mr. Collins had been charged and entered a nolo contendere plea to a related misdemeanor without further challenging the warrant or conviction. The trial court granted summary adjudication dismissing the civil rights claims as an improper collateral attack on the conviction under Heck v. Humphrey and later dismissed the tort claims on grounds of state immunity. On appeal, the court affirmed, ruling that the State had no liability under the Governmental Tort Claims Act for the tort claims of fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, false light, tortious interference, or civil conspiracy, because the claims either failed to allege cognizable wrongs creating liability or lacked an underlying unlawful act, and the State cannot conspire with itself.

civil rightscriminal lawproceduretorts & liability

This case involved a dispute between a produce business and its insurer over claims for lost income and product spoilage following a 1999 tornado in Moore, Oklahoma. The business alleged that restrictions on access after the storm caused a downturn in sales, but the insurer denied the claims citing lack of physical damage to the premises and insufficient documentation. The trial court granted summary judgment to the insurance company, which the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that the business owner breached the insurance contract by failing to submit a required proof of loss and cooperate in providing loss details despite multiple requests and an opportunity to do so, preventing the claim from maturing. Additionally, the legitimate dispute over coverage precluded a bad faith claim.

business & regulatory

The case Nelson v. Nelson involved a dispute over whether the trial court properly changed custody of the parties' two sons, ages 12 and 7, from the mother to the father based on the children's preferences. The appellate court affirmed the custody modification, holding that the older child's intelligent preference to live with his father, combined with the younger child's preference to avoid separation from his brother, justified the change. The core reasoning was that under both prior case law and 43 O.S. Supp.2002 § 113, a well-founded child custody preference supports modification without proof of any other material change in circumstances, and the absence of a trial transcript on appeal rendered the trial court's decision presumptively correct.

family law

This case involved the attempted forfeiture of twenty-five firearms seized from the home of Norvel West, Sr., during the execution of a search warrant related to suspected marijuana cultivation and possession on his property. Mr. West's estate, through his mother as executrix, contested the forfeiture, arguing there was no connection between the guns and the drug offenses. The trial court ordered forfeiture, reasoning that the presence of guns in a house with drugs implied they were available to protect the marijuana cultivation. On appeal, the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals reversed, holding that the firearms were not subject to forfeiture under 63 O.S.2001 § 2-503(A)(9) because the state failed to show they facilitated the drug offenses in any manner beyond an incidental or fortuitous connection, as the guns were part of a personal collection unrelated to the marijuana activities.

criminal lawpropertyguns

This case involved bail bond sureties appealing the denial of their motion to vacate forfeiture of bonds posted for a defendant who failed to appear in court after being released by police on new drug charges. The sureties argued that state officers increased their risk by arresting the defendant and releasing him without notice to pursue further investigations. The appellate court reversed, holding that the sureties were entitled to vacation of the forfeitures. The court reasoned that the officers' actions, taken as agents of the state, materially altered the sureties' risk under the bond contracts without notice or consent, which operates as a discharge of the sureties' obligations as a matter of law under established principles governing bail bond agreements.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved former foster parents who petitioned to adopt a child after his biological parents' rights were terminated and he was in the custody of the Oklahoma Department of Human Services (DHS). DHS had removed the child from the foster parents' home and planned to place him for adoption with his siblings, but the foster parents sought to proceed with adoption without DHS consent in a separate proceeding. The district court dismissed the petition, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, holding that the foster parents lacked standing because they had not intervened in the ongoing deprived child proceeding despite having the opportunity to do so. The court reasoned that under the Adoption Code, DHS holds authority to consent to adoptions for children in its custody, and the petitioners could not establish eligibility for adoption or force consent through a separate action without following statutory procedures. The opinion emphasized that the petitioners failed to meet the legal requirements for their adoption petition as a matter of law.

family lawprocedure

The case concerned whether a natural father's consent was required for the adoption of his minor child C.D.O. under Oklahoma law, specifically 10 O.S. Supp.2000 § 7505-4.2(B)(1), which allows adoption without consent if the parent willfully fails to pay child support in substantial compliance with a court order for twelve consecutive months out of the fourteen months before the petition. The parties stipulated that the father made only two payments during the relevant period. The trial court ruled that those payments interrupted the consecutive period and denied the adoption without consent. On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals held that the two payments did not constitute substantial compliance with the support order's duty, amount, and manner of payment, reversed the trial court's order, and remanded for a determination on whether the failure was willful.

family law

This case involved a landlord-tenant dispute in which Broken Arrow Partnership filed a forcible entry and detainer action against PBC Investment Opportunities, Inc., seeking to recover leased premises after an employee of the tenant's massage business was arrested for soliciting a lewd act and the business received police citations. The small claims court granted summary judgment to the tenant, holding that the lease required the landlord to provide notice and an opportunity to cure before declaring a default for failure to operate the business in compliance with the law. On appeal, the court reversed, ruling that the lease provisions treating unlawful use of the premises as an automatic default did not require notice and cure, that the tenant's undisputed violations of those material conditions entitled the landlord to possession as a matter of law, and that the trial court should have granted the landlord's timely motion to vacate the judgment against it.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a malpractice lawsuit brought by Jackie and Robin King against their former tax attorney and preparer, Wylie J. Neal, after an IRS audit of their 1991 tax return disallowed two deductions he had advised them to claim—one related to a settlement loss with a bank and the other to legal fees paid in prior years. The jury found Neal 70% at fault and awarded the Kings damages including the additional taxes, penalties, interest, and return preparation fees they incurred, while finding no punitive damages. Neal appealed, arguing the trial court erred by refusing his proposed jury instruction to exclude the additional taxes as damages and by admitting evidence of a prior mistake on the Kings' 1988 return. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the requested instruction was overly broad because some additional taxes were properly considered damages and that the prior error evidence was relevant to Neal's standard of care without causing unfair prejudice. The court reasoned that Neal's liability for the taxes was supported by precedent where negligent tax advice directly caused the assessment and that any evidentiary error was harmless given the jury's allocation of fault.

taxestorts & liability

This case involved a proceeding to terminate the parental rights of Deborah C. to her daughter B.C. based on the mother's incarceration being detrimental to the child under Oklahoma law. The trial court, following a jury verdict, terminated the mother's parental rights after finding clear and convincing evidence that the statutory factors were met, including the child's prior adjudication as deprived and that termination was in the child's best interests. On appeal, the mother challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the protection of her fundamental parental rights, and various due process issues such as joint prosecution and witness testimony. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the judgment, holding that the evidence supported the verdict and that no errors or abuses of discretion occurred in the trial proceedings.

family law

In Cornelius v. Cornelius, the ex-husband filed a paternity action to establish that he was the natural father of a child born during the marriage, despite a prior divorce decree finding he was not the father. The trial court determined paternity in his favor based on stipulated DNA test results showing a 99% probability and awarded him custody. The appellate court affirmed, holding that res judicata did not bar the proceeding because the ex-husband sought to assume parental responsibility rather than avoid it, the ex-wife had misled him about paternity, and the child was not bound by the divorce decree's non-paternity finding. The court further reasoned that a divorce decree's non-paternity determination merely removes custody and support issues from the divorce proceeding and does not conclusively settle the parent-child relationship.

family lawprocedure

This case arose from a sexual harassment lawsuit by employee Angela Tsotaddle against her supervisor Jim Murdock and employer Absentee Shawnee Housing Authority, with a cross-claim by Murdock against the Housing Authority for his termination without a hearing or stated cause. The jury found that Murdock's employment was not at-will but included implied contractual rights to procedural protections under the employer's policies, as well as a property interest protected by due process, and awarded him $75,000 in damages on his breach of contract and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. The trial court also granted attorney fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment on the verdict, holding that the issues of contract and due process protections presented factual questions for the jury supported by competent evidence rather than being determinable as a matter of law. However, it reversed the attorney fee award and remanded for the trial court to allocate and award fees only for the successful § 1983 claim, as distinct from the contract claim.

labor & employmentcivil rights