Justia Oklahoma Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The biological father of H.M.W. and K.D.W. was in prison. He refused a writ of habeas corpus to attend the trial terminating his parental rights. When the case was called, Father's counsel requested a jury trial in absentia. In response, the State requested termination by default. Without ruling on these requests, the trial court heard testimony without a jury concerning the best interests of the children and potential harm to the children from continuing Father's parental relationship. In the end, the trial court denied the request for jury trial in absentia and granted the State's request for default termination. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the termination, but ruled that Father's refusal to appear resulted in a consent termination rather than a default judgment. Father appealed that outcome. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the trial court erred in terminating Father's parental rights without a jury trial, and the Court of Civil Appeals erred in affirming that judgment. Accordingly, both courts' decisions were vacated or reversed, and the matter remanded for a new trial. View "In the matter of H.M.W." on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellee James Starkey, Sr. petitioned the trial court for a reduction of his level assignment. He was a registered sex offender whose registration period was retroactively increased by the Department of Corrections. Plaintiff later filed a motion for summary judgment, contending he should have never been required to register. The trial court found that the Oklahoma Sex Offenders Registration Act was not meant to be applied retroactively and granted Plaintiff's motion. The Department of Corrections appealed. Upon careful review of the trial court's decision, the Supreme Court affirmed: it agreed with the result of the trial court's order finding that the level assignments were not to be retroactively applied, but disagreed with how the trial court determined what date the Act became applicable to Plaintiff. The trial court's decision was modified to apply the date of Plaintiff's entry with the intent to remain in Oklahoma following his conviction rather than the actual date of conviction in Texas as the critical point to determine which provisions of the Act would apply to him. View "Starkey v. Oklahoma Dept. of Corrections" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, a licensed bail bondsman and several insurance companies that issue bail bonds, sued for an injunction against Curtis Pletcher, a registered professional bail bondsman. They argued he violated the "Ten Bond Rule" by using a surety bondsman to write more than ten bonds per year in violation of Oklahoma law. Plaintiffs argued that after Pletcher (or a surety bondsman) wrote bonds on ten defendants in Oklahoma County in one year, subsequent bonds written in that county were illegal and the Court Clerk should have refused to file them. The Court Clerk moved to dismiss because power and authority to enforce the Ten Bond Rule lies with the Insurance Commissioner. The trial judge granted the motion to dismiss and denied plaintiffs' motion for new trial. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court, finding it correctly ruled that enforcement of the Ten Bond Rule lies with the Insurance Commissioner and not the Court Clerk. View "Dowell v. Pletcher" on Justia Law

Appellant Timothy Wall (Patient) filed a petition for medical negligence against Dr. John S. Marouk, D.O. (Physician). Wall alleged that the physician negligently cut the median nerve in his right arm during a carpal tunnel surgery, resulting in loss of feeling in his right fingers. The patient did not attach an affidavit of merit as required by 12 O.S. 2011 sec. 19. The physician filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the patient failed to include the affidavit of merit. In response to the physician's motion to dismiss, the patient argued that 12 O.S 2011 sec.19 was unconstitutional based on this court's holding in "Zeier v. Zimmer." The trial court entered a certified interlocutory order denying the physician's motion to dismiss, and giving the patient twenty days from the date of the order to file an affidavit of merit or face dismissal of the cause. The trial court subsequently entered an amended certified interlocutory order stating that 12 O.S. 2011 sec. 19 required an affidavit of merit finding the patient's arguments unpersuasive. The Supreme Court granted the patient's Petition for Certiorari to consider the constitutionality of 12 O.S. 2011 sec. 19. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that Title 12 O.S. 2011 sec. 19 created a monetary barrier to access the court system, and then applied that barrier only to a specific subclass of potential tort victims, those who are the victims of professional negligence. The result was a law that was unconstitutional both as a special law, and as an undue financial barrier on access to the courts. "Although we express no opinion on the viability of the patient's claim, because we hold 12 O.S. 2011 sec. 19 to be unconstitutional, an affidavit of merit is not required." The district court's order requiring submission of an affidavit of merit was overruled, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Wall v. Marouk" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a wrongful death action against Defendant Cox Retirement Properties, alleging Richard Douglas died as a result of the facility's negligent care and treatment. Defendant moved to dismiss the case for Plaintiff's failure to comply with 12 O.S. Supp. 2009 19. Section 19 was enacted in 2009 as part of H.B. 1603, known as the Comprehensive Lawsuit Reform Act of 2009. Plaintiff responded to the motion to dismiss, arguing the CLRA of 2009 was unconstitutional logrolling in violation of the single-subject rule of Article 5, section 57 of the Oklahoma Constitution. The trial court granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and certified the dismissal order for immediate review. The Supreme Court granted Plaintiff's Petition for Certiorari and held that hold that H.B. 1603 violated the single-subject rule of Article 5, section 57 of the Oklahoma Constitution and was unconstitutional and void in its entirety. View "Douglas v. Cox Retirement Properties, Inc." on Justia Law

The dispositive issue in this appeal was whether the trial judge erred in issuing a temporary injunction. The substantive issue in this appeal was whether the Executive Director of the Oklahoma Secondary School Activities Association (OSSAA) acted in an unreasonable and arbitrary manner when he imposed a forfeiture penalty against Wright City Public School (Wright City) for violation of OSSAA's 22-game limit baseball rule. On April 30, 2013, the Executive Director of the Oklahoma Secondary School Activities Association determined that the Wright City Public School violated the Association's rules when the varsity baseball team played the Idabel junior varsity team and the Valliant varsity team. The Executive Director imposed the penalty, requiring the Wright City team to forfeit the next two games. The penalty eliminated Wright City from the 2013 Class A state tournament scheduled for May 2 and 3, 2013. On May 1, the district court entered a temporary restraining order and temporary injunction. The Supreme Court concluded "[a]ll the players in this controversy" erred: (1) the Executive Director should not have decided the alleged rule violation with Wright City's request for reconsideration pending and without allowing Wright City a meeting with the investigator; (2) Wright City should not have sought district court relief before the OSSAA Board of Directors denied it any relief; and (3) the district court should not have entertained the petition for injunctive relief before it had proof that the OSSAA Board of Directors refused to rule on the alleged rule violation and refused to extend the baseball season to allow Wright City to exercise its rights under the due process procedure in the OSSAA Constitution. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dissolved the district court's temporary injunction and remanded the case to the district court with directions to stay this proceeding until Wright City had an opportunity to challenge the allegations of rule violation before the OSSAA Board of Directors pursuant to OSSAA's Constitution. View "Wright City Public Schools v. Oklahoma Secondary School Activities Assn." on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant offered to purchase plaintiffs-appellees' mineral interest in Seminole County. At the time, plaintiffs did not know that they had inherited the mineral interest, that the mineral interest was included in a pooling order, or that proceeds had accrued under the pooling order. Defendant admitted it knew about the pooling order and the accrued proceeds but did not disclose these facts in making the offer. Plaintiffs signed the mineral deeds which defendant provided, and subsequently, they discovered the pooling order and the accrued proceeds. Plaintiffs filed suit against defendant for rescission and damages, alleging misrepresentation, deceit and fraud. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed. The issues before the Supreme Court on appeal were: (1) whether the summary judgment record on appeal established that defendant owed the plaintiffs a duty to disclose the pooling order and the accrued mineral proceeds when it made an unsolicited offer to purchase their undivided mineral interest in Seminole County and provided the mineral deeds to be executed; and if so, (2) whether rescission of the mineral deeds was a remedy for defendant's breach of the disclosure duty. The Court held that defendant owed a duty to disclose the accrued mineral proceeds to plaintiffs when it offered to purchase the mineral interest and provided the mineral deeds conveying the mineral interest and assigning the accrued mineral proceeds, if any. Furthermore, the Court held that rescission is an appropriate remedy in this case for the breach of defendant's disclosure duty. View "Croslin v. Enerex, Inc." on Justia Law

Debtor Jennifer Lynn Jackson purchased a horse trailer in 2003 for personal use with the proceeds of a purchase-money loan from Defendant Arvest Bank. The Oklahoma Tax Commission issued a certificate of title for the trailer. The bank filed a UCC-1 financing statement for the collateral in 2003, and a UCC continuation statement in 2008. The central issue to this case was the issuance of title by the Oklahoma Tax Commission to the debtor and the title's implications on the perfection of the bank's security interest in the trailer. That security interest was not recorded on the face of the certificate of title, nor did the bank take steps to record the security interest. The debtor did not request that a title be issued. The manufacturer of the trailer had forwarded a statement of origin to an Oklahoma tag agent, who then issued the title. Susan Manchester, as the trustee of record, sought to avoid the perfected security interest by the bank in the trailer. She asserted that because title was issued and the lien was not noted on the title, the bank did not perfect its security interest and does not have a priority position in the bankruptcy proceeding. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Oklahoma certified a question of law to the Oklahoma Supreme Court: "May a certificate of title for a vehicle issued by the Oklahoma Tax Commission be deemed to have been 'properly issued', within the meaning of OKLA. STAT. tit. 47 section 1110.A.1, even though the vehicle was not one for which a certificate of title is required as proof of ownership under applicable Oklahoma law?" The Supreme Court did not believe that answering the question as formulated by the Bankruptcy Court settled the underlying issue of whether the bank properly perfected its security interest the trailer. The Court reformulated the question to: "Does the filing of a UCC-1 financing statement for a personal/recreational use horse trailer perfect the creditor's security interest where the Oklahoma Tax Commission has issued a discretionary certificate of title, and the creditor is not named on the title?" The Court answered: title may be properly issued by the Oklahoma Tax Commission to non-required trailers for the convenience of showing ownership. The use of title beyond this single purpose for non-required vehicles would be contrary to the general scheme and purposes of the Uniform Commercial Code as adopted in Oklahoma. The proper method for perfecting a security interest in collateral that is not required to be titled (but may be titled at the discretion of the owner) still is, and has been by the filing of a UCC-1 financing statement.View "Manchester v. Arvest Bank" on Justia Law

A Decree of Divorce entered August 1, 2008, granted the parties a divorce and awarded the appellee (Mother) alimony, to be paid periodically for seventy-two months, plus child support. The appellant (Father) lost his job and had not found other employment. Father filed a motion to modify the Decree of Divorce to reduce the amount of child support and to discontinue the support alimony. Father requested that his income be imputed at minimum wage. Mother objected on the grounds that Father either resigned his job voluntarily or committed acts that led to his dismissal, such as failing to appear at work for three days. Mother's position was that because Father's actions caused his changed circumstances, he should not be relieved of his court ordered obligations. The district court denied the motion on the ground that the decrease in income was temporary and was due to appellant's voluntary act of resigning his job. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, stating that appellant's voluntary decision to resign based on his own misconduct did not relieve him of his obligation to pay child support. The Supreme Court granted the appellant's petition for certiorari and found that the trial court made no finding that Father acted in bad faith and there was no evidence that Father resigned his job in order to avoid his support obligations under the divorce decree. The court's denial of the motion to modify was against the clear weight of the evidence. The order denying the motion to modify was therefore reversed and the case remanded to the trial court for recalculation of the Father's support obligations in light of his changed circumstances. View "Garcia v. Garcia" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued his former spouse, seeking rescission and damages arising out of an allegedly fraudulent real estate sales agreement. The district court dismissed Plaintiff's lawsuit for failing to issue summons or file a waiver within ninety days of bringing the action as required by Rule 9(a), Rules for District Courts of Oklahoma. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review a discord between Rule 9(a) and 12 O.S.Supp. 2002 section 2004(I), and found the two provisions were in direct conflict to the extent Rule 9(a) shortened plaintiff's allotted time for service of summons. View "Cornett v. Carr" on Justia Law