Denver N. Davison

In Darrow v. Spencer, the parties formed an oral contract for the sale of hay at $1.50 per bale, but disagreed on whether it required Dr. Darrow to sell all hay grown on his farm during the 1975 season. After delivering the first two cuttings, Dr. Darrow refused further sales at that price, leading Mr. Spencer to sue for breach and seek damages for moldy or light bales and the higher cost of replacement hay purchased elsewhere. The trial court found a breach of a contract covering all 1975 hay and awarded damages plus attorney fees, but the appellate court held that the UCC Statute of Frauds (12A O.S. § 2-201) limited enforceability to the quantity of goods admitted by the seller in pleadings or testimony. Accordingly, the court reversed the award of $3,500 for undelivered future cuttings while affirming the $100 award for light bales and the $345 offset on the cross-petition, and it remanded for reconsideration of attorney fees due to lack of evidence on reasonableness.

business & regulatory

The case involved a products liability action in which plaintiffs sued manufacturers, including Minnesota Mining, for injuries from chemical fumes; after plaintiffs failed to respond to requests for admissions, the trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment based on the deemed admissions. Plaintiffs then filed an untimely "motion to reconsider" more than ten days later, which the trial court treated as a motion for new trial and granted, vacating the judgment. Minnesota Mining sought a writ of prohibition from the Oklahoma Supreme Court, which assumed original jurisdiction and granted the writ. The court reasoned that the motion was in substance a new trial motion that had to be filed within ten days under statute, no appeal was taken, and the motion did not satisfy the specific grounds required under the vacation statutes such as 12 O.S. § 1031, rendering the trial court's action beyond its jurisdiction.

proceduretorts & liability

The case concerned an application by Larry Cabelka for a temporary permit from the Oklahoma Water Resources Board to appropriate 400 acre feet of water annually from a spring for recreation, housing, and irrigation uses; the Board granted the permit treating the water as ground water, but the City of Lawton protested on grounds that the spring fed a definite stream within the watershed of its municipal water supply lake. After the Board reaffirmed its order, the City sought judicial review, and the district court reversed, holding that the water must be classified as stream water. On appeal, the Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that under Title 60 O.S. § 60 and Title 82 O.S. § 105.1, spring water that forms a definite stream is public stream water from its inception and cannot be appropriated as ground water by encasing the spring; the Board therefore erred in granting the permit without following stream-water appropriation procedures. The court also noted the Board's inadequate findings of fact as an independent basis for reversal.

environmentproperty

The case involved a buyer of used dry cleaning equipment who sued the seller and a subsequent owner for breach of warranty and fraudulent misrepresentation after the equipment malfunctioned and was not rebuilt as promised. The trial court sustained a demurrer to the evidence and entered judgment for the defendants. On appeal, the court held that evidence of consequential damages from excess use of cleaning fluid was sufficient to submit the breach of warranty claim to a jury under the UCC, but there was insufficient evidence to prove the fraud claim or direct damages from the difference in value of the goods. The court therefore affirmed dismissal of the fraud claim, reversed on the warranty claim regarding consequential damages, and remanded for a new trial on that issue.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

Former Weatherford police officer Bill Dill sued the city, its mayor, police chief, and city council members for slander, claiming the chief made public false accusations of illegal conduct such as selling beer to minors and that the statements were part of a conspiracy to justify his demotion and deter a lawsuit. A jury awarded Dill $30,000 in actual damages and $35,000 in punitive damages against the chief, mayor, and city. The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed the judgments against the mayor and city, holding that Dill failed to present independent evidence establishing a prima facie case of conspiracy, which rendered the chief's out-of-court statements inadmissible hearsay against the other defendants. It affirmed the actual damages award against the chief but reversed the punitive damages award against him due to prejudice from the jury's consideration of the other defendants' wealth, and remanded for reconsideration of punitive damages.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved the First National Bank of Guthrie seeking to enforce an assignment of future renewal commissions from an insurance company as collateral for two defaulted consumer loans made to John M. Brown, who had discharged the debts in bankruptcy. The trial court sustained demurrers and dismissed the action, ruling the assignment unenforceable under Oklahoma's Consumer Credit Code, and awarded attorney fees to Brown. On appeal, the Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed that the renewal commissions qualified as "earnings" under 14A O.S.1971 § 1-301(8), making the assignment prohibited and unenforceable by 14A O.S.1971 § 3-403. The court reversed the attorney fee award because it was improperly granted under 12 O.S.1971 § 936 rather than the Consumer Credit Code provision at 14A O.S.1971 § 5-202(8), remanded for reconsideration under the correct statute, and awarded additional appeal-related fees at its discretion.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

In Felty v. City of Lawton, the plaintiffs brought a wrongful death action against the City of Lawton and a police officer, alleging that the officer negligently left his marked cruiser unattended with the keys in the ignition and motor running while responding to a call, enabling a third party to steal the vehicle and drive it recklessly, resulting in a fatal collision that killed the plaintiffs' daughter. The defendants filed a general demurrer to the petition, which the trial court sustained. The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the petition failed to state a cause of action because the officer's conduct was not the proximate cause of the injuries and no special circumstances were pleaded that would impose a duty on the defendants to prevent the foreseeable negligence of a third-party thief.

torts & liability

This case is an appeal from a divorce decree and accompanying division of jointly acquired property. The appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the special judge who presided over the contested proceeding without a written agreement from the parties, the trial court's property division, and the admission of certain evidence regarding separate contributions to marital assets. The court held that any jurisdictional defect was waived under 20 O.S.1971 § 124 because no objection was raised before trial and the parties had orally stipulated to jurisdiction at the outset, and that the property division did not constitute an abuse of discretion in light of the parties' health, premarital contributions, and conflicting valuation evidence. The court further ruled that evidentiary objections could not be raised for the first time on appeal. The decree was therefore affirmed in full.

family lawprocedure

The case involved purchasers of a new home suing the builder-vendor for breach of an implied warranty of habitability after their well water was found contaminated with excessive turbidity (28, exceeding the state's limit of 5), making it unusable for domestic purposes within weeks of occupancy. The buyers sought compensation for damaged personal property and costs to drill a new well, and the trial court entered judgment for them in the amount of $1,366 plus interest and costs. On appeal, the Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed, holding that an implied warranty that a new home is reasonably fit for human habitation applies equally to completed homes as to those under construction, rejecting the caveat emptor doctrine as inconsistent with modern home-buying realities and prior precedent. The court further determined that the evidence reasonably supported the necessity and amount of the awarded damages.

propertytorts & liability

The case concerned whether Oklahoma statutes requiring interpreters for deaf-mute persons upon arrest (22 O.S. §§ 277 and 278) apply to arrests by municipal police officers. Plaintiffs sought an injunction against Oklahoma City for its ongoing failure to provide such interpreters. The trial court denied relief, concluding the statutes did not extend to municipal arrests. The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the statutes apply to all arrests regardless of the governmental entity involved and require interpreter assistance within a reasonable time after arrest. The court reasoned that the statutory language grants rights to every deaf-mute charged with a crime without limitation to state arrests, that municipalities must arrange and fund interpreters as needed, and that an exclusionary evidence rule alone does not provide an adequate remedy at law.

criminal lawcivil rights

In Breeden v. League Services Corp., debtor Louise Breeden sued collection companies for damages including emotional distress, loss of sleep, and job loss, claiming their phone calls and letters at her home and workplace constituted harassing tactics. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the evidence—limited to three letters sent care of her employer, up to fourteen attempted calls (only one of which she answered, containing insults like calling her a 'damned deadbeat'), and no direct contact with her employer—did not show 'extreme and outrageous conduct' under the Restatement (Second) of Torts §46 that intentionally or recklessly caused severe emotional distress. The opinion emphasized that the law does not impose liability for mere insults, indignities, or trivial annoyances, and that fact disputes about the employer's actions were immaterial to the collectors' conduct.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerned a challenge to attorney fee awards in an Oklahoma partition action for land in which Attorneys Weaver, Porta, and Bass held undivided interests as co-owners following their prior representation of Ella Clovis; after Clovis's death and ancillary probate, Weaver initiated the partition suit, and the trial court awarded them fees under Title 12 § 1515 for services that helped sell the property above appraised value. The appellants, Clovis's grandchildren omitted from her will who were later stipulated as heirs, argued that the attorneys could not recover fees because they owned interests in the land, represented parties in a non-adversary proceeding, or filed an initially defective petition. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma affirmed the fee awards, holding that the statute permits apportionment of fees among parties according to their interests without barring recovery by attorney-owners who perform professional legal services, and that such compensation is appropriate when the attorneys' efforts benefit the common fund.

propertyprocedure

This case concerned a dispute over the priority of liens on real property in Tulsa County, where the Tulsa Abstract and Title Company omitted court records of a prior attachment lien from an abstract it prepared for the Oklahoma Morris Plan Company. Relying on the incomplete abstract, Morris Plan accepted a mortgage on the property from Torchy Jane Wolfe, but the attachment by LVO Federal Credit Union took priority, causing Morris Plan to lose its interest. The trial court ruled that the abstract company's negligence caused the loss and awarded damages to Morris Plan. On appeal, the Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed, holding that any defects in the attachment proceedings had been waived by the debtors' failure to appeal and that the abstract company was statutorily liable for damages resulting from its incomplete abstract.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

This case arose from a lawsuit in Cleveland County seeking cancellation of municipal bonds and related instruments based on alleged fraud by the bond marketer and purchaser. The trial court entered a default judgment against the defendants for repeatedly failing to answer or fully answer court-ordered interrogatories, as permitted by statute. On appeal, the Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that the default judgment was properly granted under 12 O.S.1971 § 549(c) for discovery noncompliance, that no abuse of discretion was shown in refusing to vacate it, and that arguments on the merits were not preserved or raised in the proper manner.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved consolidated appeals from a trial court's denial of a motion for new trial, following entry of a default judgment against defendants in an action to cancel municipal bond indentures, related leases, and loan guarantees based on alleged fraud and irregularities in financing an industrial plant. The default judgment had been granted as a sanction for the defendants' failure to respond to interrogatories, and the motion for new trial was filed due to the loss of a transcript from a hearing on a temporary injunction and receiver appointment. The trial court overruled the motion, citing the appellants' failure to show they could not prepare an alternative record, the non-material nature of the missing portion, and lack of compliance with statutory procedures under 12 O.S.1971 § 655. The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion because the appellants made no attempt to use available alternatives such as a narrative statement under Rule 1.22 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, and they had not followed the required petition and summons process for a new trial based on impossibility of preparing a record.

procedure

This case concerned the appointment of a guardian for Estella R. Warlick after her children petitioned the Greer County District Court, alleging she was incompetent. Warlick appealed the order on grounds including improper service of notice, lack of personal jurisdiction due to her claimed Texas residency, and insufficient evidence of incompetence. The Court of Appeals had voided the guardianship for failure to provide personal service as required by statute. The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari and reinstated the trial court's order, holding that notice sent by registered mail with a signed return receipt satisfied the personal service requirement because it was actually delivered to Warlick, that the presumption of continued Oklahoma domicile was not rebutted by the evidence, and that testimony about her inability to manage affairs and recognize family supported a finding of incompetence.

family lawprocedure

This case concerned an interpleader action to decide entitlement to approximately $50,000 in proceeds from a public auction of a debtor's farm equipment, livestock, and related property. Agristor Credit Corporation, holding a perfected security interest under the UCC for a roughly $400,000 debt, conducted the sale after default and claimed the funds; several feed suppliers asserted agister’s liens and argued that an oral agreement reached on the day of the sale entitled them to payment from the proceeds. The trial court ruled for the feedmen on the basis of that alleged contract. The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed, holding that the secured creditor had properly exercised its UCC remedies under sections 9-503 and 9-504 by taking possession and selling the collateral in a commercially reasonable manner, that any purported agreement lacked consideration because the feedmen had no legal right to disrupt the auction given the creditor’s senior lien position, and that the creditor was therefore entitled to the interpleaded funds.

propertybusiness & regulatory

In Campanello v. Mason, attorney Robert Mason represented Joan Campanello in a divorce action and sought to enforce an attorney's lien on property she received through the divorce settlement after the parties reached an agreement without his involvement. The trial court denied the lien, ruling that Mason had not perfected it because he failed to provide timely notice to the adverse party or include a lien notation on the petition as required by statute. On appeal, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that an attorney's lien under 5 O.S. §§ 6-9 can attach to property awarded in a divorce property division, as the attorney's services produced the judgment and the lien secures payment of fees from those proceeds. The court distinguished this from alimony awards and emphasized that the lien arises from equity when an attorney’s efforts result in a favorable outcome, even if the parties settle directly.

family lawprocedure

In this divorce case, the District Court of Oklahoma County granted Elsie Jo Cunningham a divorce from Johnnie Wayne Cunningham, dividing property and awarding attorney fees; the husband then filed a petition to vacate the decree under 12 O.S.1971 § 1031, alleging irregularities in setting the case for trial, fraud, unavoidable casualty, and errors in property findings. The trial court sustained demurrers to the petition and amended petition and dismissed the case, but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the lack of an answer to the cross-petition meant the case was not at issue. The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari, reversed the Court of Appeals, and affirmed the trial court's dismissal, holding that statutes 12 O.S.1971 §§ 306 and 666 allowed the case to proceed to trial after the wife's default in responding to the cross-petition, that the husband's other allegations failed to state grounds for vacating the judgment under § 1031, and that any errors in property distribution should have been raised on appeal rather than in a vacation petition.

family lawpropertyprocedure

The case involved a dispute over access to a landlocked parcel of land in Murray County, Oklahoma, originally owned by Robert L. Freeman. After Freeman's death, part of his land was sold, leaving a retained tract with no access; this tract was later acquired by the appellee through a tax sale. The appellee sued the owners of the adjacent Weiss Ranch seeking recognition of an implied easement by necessity across their property. The trial court granted the easement, allowing use by the appellee, his assigns, invitees, and licensees, with the servient owners able to select a reasonable route. The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed, holding that an easement by necessity arises by implication when a conveyance leaves retained land landlocked unless the conveyance explicitly shows contrary intent, and that the right extends to successors and others with the burden of proof on claims of undue burden falling on the challenging party.

property