Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

In 2004, the Defendants-appellees Joe and Cindy Witherspoon obtained an installment loan in the amount of $66,400.00 from a mortgage company. The promissory note was secured by a standard Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac uniform security instrument containing an optional acceleration clause. In July 2014, Bank of New York Mellon (BNYM), as the holder of the Note, filed a petition to foreclose the Mortgage. BNYM alleged that the Witherspoons defaulted on the Note and Mortgage by failing to pay the monthly installment due on December 1, 2010 and that they had failed to make any subsequent payments. BNYM asserted it elected to accelerate the debt and declare the entire balance due and payable. On October 13, 2014, BNYM voluntarily dismissed the foreclosure action without prejudice. After a series of transfers and assignments, Plaintiff-appellant MTGLQ Investors, L.P. became the holder of the Note and Mortgage on June 4, 2018. By August, MTGLQ sent the Witherspoons a Notice of Intent to Foreclose. The letter informed the Witherspoons they had defaulted on the Note and Mortgage by failing to pay the monthly installment due on January 1, 2013 and that failure to cure the default by paying all past due payments on or before September 25, 2018 might accelerate sums secured by the Mortgage and, ultimately, sale of the property. MTGLQ and the Witherspoons filed motions for summary judgment. The Witherspoons argued BNYM already accelerated the loan when they defaulted in 2010 and that MTGLQ filed its petition to foreclose on December 7, 2018, which was more than six years later, therefore, the claim was barred by the statute of limitations. MTGLQ responded that when BNYM dismissed the foreclose action, the note decelerated as a matter of law. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Witherspoons. The Oklahoma Supreme Court concluded: (1) pursuant to 12A O.S.2011, § 3-118(a), the statute of limitations began to run when the note holder exercised the option to accelerate an installment note; and (2) voluntary dismissal of a foreclosure action decelerates the loan as a matter of law. As a result, the foreclosure action was not barred by the statute of limitations, and the Witherspoons were not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. View "MTGLQ Investors v. Witherspoon" on Justia Law

In August 2015, Plaintiff-appellant, TIB-The Independent Bankers Bank ("TIB"), filed a foreclosure action against Kyle Goerke, based on a mortgage executed and recorded in 2007. TIB also included claims against Kyle Goerke's brother, defendant-appellee, Joseph Goerke ("Goerke"), and several of their family members because they possessed a right of first refusal recorded in the chain of title. At the time, Goerke also possessed a second interest in the property, a mortgage recorded in 2015. Although the title report ordered by TIB reflected both of Goerke's interests, TIB only named him as a defendant in the 2015 foreclosure based on his right of first refusal--and not on his mortgage interest. Goerke, an attorney, filed an answer in the 2015 foreclosure on behalf of himself and the other family members, noting that their right of first refusal had expired. Accordingly, Goerke claimed they had been improperly named as defendants and demanded that the claims against them be dismissed with prejudice. Goerke did not assert or reference his mortgage interest in his answer. TIB complied with Goerke's demand and dismissed the claims against him and his family members with prejudice. Kyle Goerke later resolved the default, and TIB dismissed the 2015 foreclosure action. Kyle Goerke defaulted again shortly thereafter, and TIB initiated a second foreclosure action. In the 2016 foreclosure, TIB discovered Goerke's mortgage interest and named him as a defendant on that basis. Goerke filed an answer to the 2016 foreclosure, claiming TIB was barred from bringing further claims against him because TIB dismissed him with prejudice from the 2015 foreclosure. Both TIB and Goerke filed motions for summary judgment. The district court entered an order denying TIB's motion for summary judgment and a journal entry granting Goerke's motion. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court. On certiorari, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that Plaintiff's claim against Goerke was not barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion. View "TIB-The Independent Bankers Bank v. Goerke" on Justia Law

A group of Oklahoma landowners petitioned for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, claiming that the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority violated the Open Meeting Act, 25 O.S.2021, §§ 301 to 314, regarding its notice to the public of the ACCESS Oklahoma Program. Both parties sought summary judgment. The district court rendered summary judgment in the landowners' favor, finding that the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority willfully violated the Open Meeting Act. The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority gave sufficient notice of the agenda items that the landowners challenged. Furthermore, the Court found that the lack of notice regarding the announcement of the ACCESS Oklahoma Program at the February 2022 meeting did not violate the Open Meeting Act because the announcement was for informational purposes only. View "Hirschfeld, et al. v. Oklahoma Turnpike Authority" on Justia Law

Appellants Pike Off OTA, Inc., Amy Cerato, Mike Leary, Vince Dougherty, Terrie Club, Mike Club, Twyla Smith, Cali Coward, Karen Powell, Mike Powell, Cedric Leblanc, Darla Leblanc, Claudette Wispe, Mark Dooling, Nate Piel, Kara Piel, Nikki Whitson, John Whitson, Robert Wallace, Chelsea Wallace, Robin Stead, Anna Olson, Tassie Hirschfeld, Ice Blast LLC, and Janette Ward (collectively Appellants) brought claims challenging the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority's (OTA) authority to construct three proposed turnpikes: the Tri-City Connector, the East-West Connector, and the South Extension. The OTA moved to dismiss these claims, arguing that Appellants' claims were within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The district court granted the OTA's motion to dismiss, and Appellants appealed. The Supreme Court concurred it had exclusive original jurisdiction to determine whether the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority is authorized to construct the proposed turnpikes in the bond validation matter. The Court further ruled that appellants failed to establish that they had a clear legal right to the injunctive and/or mandamus relief sought. View "Pike Off OTA v. Okla. Turnpike Auth." on Justia Law

Respondent Oklahoma State Board of Equalization, assessed an ad valorem tax concerning on the property of Complainant Terral Telephone Company. The Company protested the assessment, and the Board moved to dismiss the protest, alleging the protest was non-compliant and untimely. The Court of Tax Review agreed and ruled that the protest did not comply with the statutes and rules necessary to invoke its jurisdiction. The Company appealed the ruling to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, which after review, affirmed the Court of Tax Review. View "Terral Telephone Co. v. Oklahoma St. Bd. of Equalization" on Justia Law

Petitioners Grant and Kalan Lloyd sought to adopt minor child L.B.L. without Mother Sara Pollard's consent. The District Court found that Child was eligible for adoption without Mother's consent. Mother appealed, and the Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court. "Ideally, the child's best interests run together with the parent's. In practice these principles seldom conflict, because a trial court may usually give equal effect to both. Sometimes, this can only be done by ensuring the parent's due process rights are protected, then considering which outcome is in the child's best interests." Here, the Oklahoma Supreme Court found that the Court of Civil Appeals specifically acknowledged the best interests of the child standard, but allowed it to be outweighed by other considerations in reaching its conclusion. Consequently, the Supreme Court vacated the Court of Civil Appeals opinion, affirmed the trial court, and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. View "In the Matter of the Adoption of L.B.L." on Justia Law

Erasmo Paredes sustained an on-the-job injury in late 2019. He continued working for his employer, Schlumberger Technology Corp., until January 30, 2020. His employer's insurance carrier, Travelers Indemnity Company of America, provided voluntary medical treatment to Paredes from January 3, 2020, through February 14, 2020. Paredes's CC-Form 3 Claim for Compensation was filed on December 3, 2020, alleging an injury date of December 29, 2019. This claim was filed ten months after Paredes's last medical treatment, but within one year from the date of his injury. Travelers's counsel entered an appearance in the Workers' Compensation case on December 22, 2020. On February 18, 2021, the affidavit of Travelers's claims handler was filed with attachments indicating Travelers provided medical treatment to Paredes in the total amount of $1,371.47. No disability benefits were paid. On the same date, counsel for Travelers filed the CC-Form 10 Answer and Notice of Contested Issues on behalf of Schlumberger raising the defense of statute of limitations pursuant to Section 69(A)(1) of Title 85 A. 1 Schlumberger also denied compensable injuries, alleged pre-existing conditions pursuant to 85A O.S. Supp. 2019, § 2(9)(b)(6), and denied benefits. An ALJ issued an order that was filed on May 13, 2021, concluding that Paredes's claim was not barred by Section 69(A)(1). Schlumberger appealed to the Workers' Compensation Commission ("Commission"), and the parties filed written arguments. Oral argument before the Commission was held on January 14, 2022. The Commission, sitting en banc, affirmed the Decision of the ALJ by order filed January 18, 2022. Schlumberger appealed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court seeking review of the Commission's interpretation of 85A O.S. Supp. 2019, § 69(A)(1). Finding no error in the Commission's interpretation, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Schlumberger Technology Corp. v. Travelers Indemnity Co. of America" on Justia Law

During the summer of 2021, Appellants Edmond Public School Board Members and Edmond Public School District Superintendent, Angela Grunewald, (collectively "District") anticipated a complete return to in-person instruction for the 2021-2022 school year. Prior to the start of the school year, the Oklahoma City County Health Department ("OCCHD") expressed to District that quarantines should be recommended rather than required. In response, District prepared a standard letter that alerted parents when their child was exposed to a positive COVID-19 case, which left the responsibility "for carrying out a quarantine or not" up to the parents. School began on Thursday, August 12, 2021. By the fourth day of school, District reported 140 positive cases of COVID-19 which rose to 170 positive cases on the fifth day of the school year. The District thereafter implemented a policy consistent with the OCCHD’s recommendation and informed parents of the policy by email. As a result of the Policy, several unvaccinated students were required to quarantine due to being identified as a close contact. The Appellees, parents of children enrolled in Edmond Public Schools affected by the Policy ("Parents"), individually and on behalf of their children, filed a Petition for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief and an Application for Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO") alleging the policy violated state statutory and federal constitutional rights. District objected, and the TRO was denied. The trial court denied relief on all three counts pleaded in the Petition, but granted a Temporary Injunction based on Parents' Equal Protection Clause argument and enjoined District from implementing or enforcing the Policy. The District appealed. The trial court determined Parents were likely to succeed on the merits of their Equal Protection Clause claim against District but were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the Policy violated 70 O.S.Supp.2021, § 1210.189(A)(1). The Oklahoma Supreme Court found the trial court improperly interpreted § 1210.189(A)(1) and incorrectly concluded Parents were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the Policy violated § 1210.189(A)(1). Because the Supreme Court determined the policy violated 70 O.S.Supp.2021, § 1210.189(A)(1), it did not address the Equal Protection Clause argument. The trial court’s order was vacated and a declaratory judgment was granted in favor of the Parents. View "Shellem v. Gruneweld" on Justia Law

In 2018, Mwande Serge Kpiele-Poda ("Employee") was injured at a wellsite while repairing a conveyor that activated and crushed his legs. While Employee's Workers' Compensation claim was still pending, he filed a petition asserting negligence and products liability against his employers, two wellsite operators, and the manufacturers and distributors of the conveyor. Ovintiv Mid-Continent, Inc. was named in the body of the petition but omitted from the caption. After the statute of limitations period expired, Employee amended his petition to add Ovintiv Mid-Continent, Inc. as a defendant in the petition's caption. A second amended petition added other parties. Ovintiv Mid-Continent, Inc. moved to dismiss arguing the claim was time-barred because the amended petition did not relate back to the first petition. Employee's employers also moved to dismiss arguing the Administrative Workers' Compensation Act and Oklahoma precedent precluded employees from simultaneously maintaining an action before the Workers' Compensation Commission and in the district court. The district court granted each dismissal motion and certified each order as appealable. The Oklahoma Supreme Court retained and consolidated Employee's separate appeals, holding: (1) the district court erred when it dismissed Employee's action against Ovintiv Mid-Continent, Inc. as time-barred; and (2) the district court properly dismissed Employee's intentional tort action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Kpiele-Poda v. Patterson-UTI Energy, et al." on Justia Law

The issue on appeal was whether the trial court abused its discretion by relying on an attorney's controverted affidavit to prove bad faith litigation conduct and whether the trial court had before it sufficient evidence to support the trial court's award of attorney fees based on maintaining or defending an action in bad faith. The trial court concluded that Durant H.M.A.'s litigation conduct was "done in bad faith, was oppressive, vexatious and willful," and sanctioned Durant to pay Plaintiff's attorney fees and costs. The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court order in its entirety. The Oklahoma Supreme Court previously granted the petition for certiorari, and now vacated the COCA decision and reversed the trial court's granting of attorney fees and costs. "We recognize that the trial court was very familiar with this case which began in June of 2016, and eventually resulted in judgment entered in January of 2018. The trial court was in the best position to evaluate the demeanor and credibility of the parties and counsel over the course of one-and-a-half years. However, based upon the totality of the record, we find that the trial court had insufficient evidence to support an award of attorney fees as a sanction for bad faith litigation conduct and abused its discretion in finding that Durant's actions amounted to bad faith." View "Whittington v. Durant H.M.A." on Justia Law