Opinion ID: 2716736
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: When an order:

Text: 1. Discharges, vacates, or modifies or refuses to discharge, vacate, or modify an attachment; 2. Denies a temporary or permanent injunction, grants a temporary or permanent injunction except where granted at an ex parte hearing, or discharges, vacates, or modifies or refuses to discharge, vacate, or modify a temporary or permanent injunction; 3. Discharges, vacates, or modifies or refuses to discharge, vacate, or modify a provisional remedy which affects the substantial rights of a party; 4. Appoints a receiver except where the receiver was appointed at an ex parte hearing, refuses to appoint a receiver, or vacates or refuses to vacate the appointment of a receiver; 5. Directs the payment of money pendente lite except where granted at an ex parte hearing, refuses to direct the payment of money pendente lite, or vacates or refuses to vacate an order directing the payment of money pendente lite; 6. Certifies or refuses to certify an action to be maintained as a class action; 7. Denies a motion in a class action asserting lack of jurisdiction because an agency of this state has exclusive or primary jurisdiction of the action or a part of the action, or asserting that a party has failed to exhaust administrative remedies, but only if the class is subsequently certified and only as part of the appeal of the order certifying the class action; or 8. Grants a new trial or opens or vacates a judgment or order, the party aggrieved thereby may appeal the order to the Supreme Court without awaiting the final determination in said cause, by filing the petition in error and the record on appeal with the Supreme Court within thirty (30) days after the order prepared in conformance with Section 696.3 of this title, is filed with the court clerk. If the appellant did not prepare the order, and Section 696.2 of this title required a copy of the order to be mailed to the appellant, and the court records do not reflect the mailing of a copy of the order to the appellant within three (3) days, exclusive of weekends and holidays, after the filing of the order, the petition in error may be filed within thirty (30) days after the earliest date on which the court records show that a copy of the order was mailed to the appellant. The Supreme Court may extend the time for filing the record upon good cause shown. B. If the order discharges or modifies an attachment or temporary injunction and it becomes operative, the undertaking given upon the allowance of an attachment or temporary injunction shall stay the enforcement of said order and remain in full force until final order of discharge shall take effect. C. If a receiver shall be or has been appointed, upon the appellant filing an appeal bond, with sufficient sureties, in such sum as may have been required of the receiver by the court or a judge thereof, conditioned for the due prosecution of the appeal and the payment of all costs or damages that may accrue to the state or any officer or person by reason thereof, the authority of the receiver shall be suspended until the final determination of the appeal, and if the receiver has taken possession of any property, real or personal, it shall be returned and surrendered to the appellant upon the filing and approval of the bonds. 10 See 12 O.S.2011 § 952, supra , at n. 8. 11 See 12 O.S.2011 § 952(a) (The Supreme Court may reverse, vacate or modify judgments of the district court for errors appearing on the record, and in the reversal of such judgment may reverse, vacate or modify any intermediate order involving the merits of the action, or any portion thereof .) (emphasis added); State v. One Thousand Two Hundred Sixty-seven Dollars , 2006 OK 15, ¶ 17, 131 P.3d 116, 123 (An aggrieved party may secure review of every preserved prejudicial error committed at nisi prius in the course of proceedings which precede an appealable decision. This common-law concept of reviewability is explicitly embodied in the terms of 12 O.S.2001 § 952(a).) (notes omitted). 12 30 O.S.2011 § 3-106 (A)(6): A. In all hearings conducted pursuant to Article III of the Oklahoma Guardianship and Conservatorship Act, an individual who is alleged to be or found to be an incapacitated or partially incapacitated person shall have a right to: . . . 6. appeal adverse orders and judgments as provided by the rules of civil procedure;. . . . 13 58 O.S.2011 § 721: An appeal may be taken from the following judgments or orders of the district court: 1. Granting, or refusing, or revoking letters testamentary or of administration, or of guardianship, or conservatorship; 2. Admitting, or refusing to admit, a will to probate; 3. Against or in favor of the validity of a will or revoking the probate thereof; 4. Against or in favor of setting apart property, or making an allowance for a widow or child; 5. Against or in favor of directing the partition, sale or conveyance of real property; 6. Settling an account of an executor, or administrator or guardian; 7. Refusing, allowing or directing the distribution or partition of an estate, or any part thereof or the payment of a debt, claim, legacy or distributive share; 8. Refusing or allowing the release of estate tax liability; 9. An order determining liability for estate taxes made pursuant to Section 268 of this title; or 10. From any other judgment, decree or order of the court in a probate cause, or of the judge thereof, affecting a substantial right. 14 County Courts exercised probate jurisdiction or jurisdiction in probate matters prior to the reorganization of Oklahoma courts in 1969. In re Guardianship of Stanfield , 2012 OK 8, 276 P.3d 989, 998; Wilson v. Kane , 1993 OK 65, 852 P.2d 717, 720-721. The phrase probate cause was often linked to the specific case number on the docket of a county court exercising its probate jurisdiction in a guardianship. Harrison v. Orwig , 1931 OK 244, 299 P. 143, 146; Steil v. Marshall , 1928 OK 321, 267 P.2d 268, 268-269. Cf . Reynolds v. Brock , 1926 OK 3, 250 P. 999, 1000 (when adjudicating the issue whether a guardianship could be transferred between two county courts and after discussing the jurisdiction of county courts in probate matters, the Court explained that on county court had not acquired jurisdiction of this probate proceeding). The probate jurisdiction exercised in a probate cause in a county court statutorily included a guardianship proceeding which became part of the probate jurisdiction of a district court. See , e.g. , 58 O.S.1961 § 1 (2); 58 O.S.2011 § 1 (A) (2). 15 1938 OK 424, 81 P.2d 488. 16 Towne , 1999 OK 10, at ¶ 3; State ex rel. Reirdon , 81 P.2d at 490-491. 17 Towne , 1999 OK 10, at ¶ 4, (the January 5, 1999 guardianship order . . . constitutes an appealable interlocutory guardianship decision); Towne v. Hubbard , 2000 OK 30, ¶ 0, 3 P.3d 154, 156 (This court recast the quest for a prerogative writ into a timely appeal from an interlocutory order in guardianship.). 18 In the Matter of the Guardianship of Holly , 2007 OK 53, ¶¶ 16, 20-23, 164 P.3d 137, 143-144. See also Towne v. Hubbard , 2000 OK 30 ¶ 11, 3 P.3d 154, 158 (This court recast the quest for a prerogative writ into a timely appeal from an interlocutory order in guardianship and sua sponte retained the cause for disposition.). 19 The thirtieth day was Sunday, February 17, 2013, which was followed on February 18, 2013, Presidents' Day, a legal holiday. 25 O.S.2011 § 82.1(A). The timely filing of a petition in error on a Sunday or on one of the specific holidays listed in § 82.1(A) may be performed on the next succeeding business day. See 25 O.S. § 82.1(C) (Any act authorized, required, or permitted to be performed on a holiday as designated in subsection A of this section may be performed on the next succeeding business day, and no liability or loss of rights of any kind shall result from such delay.). See 12 O.S.2011 § 990A(A) which states in part that: A. An appeal to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, if taken, must be commenced by filing a petition in error with the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma within thirty (30) days from the date a judgment, decree, or appealable order prepared in conformance with Section 696.3 of this title is filed with the clerk of the trial court. 20 2002 OK 67, 58 P.3d 759. 21 State v. One Thousand Two Hundred Sixty-seven Dollars , 2006 OK 15, ¶ 17, 131 P.3d 116, 123 (An aggrieved party may secure review of every preserved prejudicial error committed at nisi prius in the course of proceedings which precede an appealable decision. This common-law concept of reviewability is explicitly embodied in the terms of 12 O.S.2001 § 952(a).) (notes omitted). 22 Martin v. Johnson , 1998 OK 127, ¶ 18, 975 P.2d 889, 893-894 (An intermediate or interlocutory order anterior to judgment may be reviewed on appeal from the judgment.); LCR, Inc. v. Linwood Properties , 1996 OK 73, at n. 19, 918 P.2d 1388, 1393 (Prejudgment orders, which affect other intermediate orders, may, of course, be reviewed after judgment under the standard of abused discretion.). Cf . Liberty Bank and Trust Co. v. Rogalin , 1996 OK 10, 912 P.2d 836, 839 (a party's right to seek appellate review of a judgment yet to be made, and those interlocutory adjudications preceding it, are not prejudiced by the Court's dismissal of a premature appeal for lack of an appealable judgment). 23 Whig Syndicate, Inc. v. Keyes , 1992 OK 95, 836 P.2d 1283, 1285-1286. 24 Whig Syndicate , 836 P.2d at 1286. See also Okla. Sup. Ct. R. 1.60 (Orders of the district court that are interlocutory and may be appealed by right in compliance with the rules in this part are those that: . . . (g) Certify or refuse to certify an action to be maintained as a class action . . . .). 25 Whig Syndicate , 836 P.2d at 1286, 1289, emphasis added. 26 In re Guardianship of Holly , 2007 OK 53, ¶ 22, 164 P.3d 137, 143, explaining In re Towne , 2000 OK 30, 3 P.3d 154. 27 Miami Business Services, L.L.C. v. Davis , 2013 OK 20, ¶ 11, 299 P.3d 477, 483. 28 Miami Business Services, L.L.C. v. Davis , 2013 OK 20, ¶ 12, 299 P.3d at 484. 29 We have previously observed in the context of a guardianship proceeding that in addition to a party raising the issue of a lawyer's conflict and independence with his or her client a statute directs the court to consider the matter. Towne , 2000 OK 30, ¶ 15, 3 P.3d at 161. 30 30 O.S.2011 § 4-403: A. 1. An attorney, other than a public defender, for a ward or a subject of a proceeding pursuant to the Oklahoma Guardianship and Conservatorship Act or whose services are obtained by a guardian on behalf of a ward is entitled to reasonable compensation to be paid from and as a charge against the estate of the ward. Reasonable compensation for attorney services rendered and expenses made on behalf of the guardian of the ward incurred prior to the appointment of the guardian may be paid from and charged against the estate of the ward, as approved by the court prior to payment. 2. Guardians ad litem, other than an employee of a public agency or an employee of a private agency which provides such service pursuant to a contract with a public agency, appointed pursuant to the provisions of this act are entitled to reasonable compensation. 3. A person conducting an evaluation of the subject of the proceeding, whose services resulted in the appointment of a limited guardian or guardian or other order beneficial to the subject of the proceeding, is entitled to reasonable and necessary compensation. B. 1. Compensation and reimbursements pursuant to this section shall be paid from the financial resources of the subject of the proceeding unless the court determines that such payment of compensation and reimbursements would: a. substantially impede the partially incapacitated or incapacitated person from meeting the essential requirements for his physical health or safety, and b. substantially impair the financial resources of such person, or substantially impede his ability to obtain the services necessary for developing or regaining his abilities to the maximum extent possible. 2. If not otherwise compensated or reimbursed pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 1 of this subsection: a. any attorney or guardian ad litem appointed by the court who is entitled to compensation shall be compensated from the court fund of the court having jurisdiction, b. the cost of services provided by a person conducting an evaluation, when such person is the employee of a public agency or the employee of a private agency which provides such services for guardianship proceedings pursuant to an agreement with a public agency, shall be borne by the public agency, or by the private agency in accordance with the terms of such agreement, and c. if the person conducting an evaluation is a private individual or agency and the cost of the services provided is not otherwise compensable under a state or federal public assistance program, compensation for the cost of services shall be from the court fund of the court having jurisdiction. 3. Compensation or reimbursement from the court fund for attorneys and guardian ad litem pursuant to the provisions of this subsection shall be in accordance with the provisions of Section 1304 of Title 20 of the Oklahoma Statutes. C. All compensation and reimbursements pursuant to the provisions of this section shall be approved by the court prior to payment. D. Contingent fees and contracts for recovery of property agreed upon and approved by courts or the ranking official representing the Secretary of the Interior in Oklahoma, who has supervision of any restricted Indian tribe in this state do not come within the provisions of the Oklahoma Guardianship and Conservatorship Act. 31 In re Guardianship of Stanfield , 2012 OK 8, ¶22, 276 P.3d 989, 1000 ( Paragraph 'C' [ 30 O.S. § 4-403] states that 'All compensation and reimbursements pursuant to the provisions of this section shall be approved by the court prior to payment.'). 32 The original application of David concerning Foster's trust and filed in the District Court in No. PT-2011-51 is missing page number 5 of that document. O.R. at 159-160. The almost identical application concerning Daughtrey's trust filed in No. PT-2011-52 contains page number 5. O.R. at 232. 33 Vol. 5 of the record on appeal, docket entry for March 15, 2012, in No. PT-2011-51: David Berry appears in person and by attorneys Cliff Baker and Steve Wyer. 34 Vol. 5 of the record on appeal, docket entry for March 15, 2012, in No. PT-2011-52: David Berry appears in person and by attorneys Cliff Baker and Steve Wyer. 35 Brief in Support of Application to Assume Original Jurisdiction and Petition for Writ of Mandamus, No. 111,492, pp. 13-14, filed by both nominated counsel and counsel for the Berryhills. 36 In re Guardianship of Holly , 2007 OK 53, ¶ 19, 164 P.3d at 143. 37 Rules of Professional Conduct, 5 O.S.2011 Ch. 1, App. 3-A, Rule 1.7(b)(3). Conflict of interest: current clients (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if: (1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or (2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer. (b) Notwithstanding the existence of a concurrent conflict of interest under paragraph (a), a lawyer may represent a client if: (1) the lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client; (2) the representation is not prohibited by law; (3) the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal; and (4) each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing. 38 July 11, 2012, Tr. at 5, line 16. 39 August 17, 2012, Tr. at 31, & Berryhill Exhibit 1. 40 Appellant's Brief in Chief, No. 111,492, filed April 15, 2013, at 22. 41 Ex parte Spurrier , 1925 OK 506, 238 P. 956, 960, quoting Kersey v. McDougal , 1920 OK 623, 191 P. 594 (Syllabus by the Court) ( A guardian appointed by a court has power over the person and property of the ward unless otherwise ordered, and such power is suspended only by order of the Court, . . . .). 42 Appellant's Brief in Chief, No. 111,492, April 15, 2013, at 24-25. 43 We characterize the evaluation as independent because the record before us contains no procedurally proper trial court challenge to the independence or merits of the evaluation that was pressed for adjudication in that court. Parties must raise their claims in the trial court within a proper procedural context for their adjudication before that court prior to pressing them in this court in the context of a review of the trial court's order adjudicating those claims , whether by appeal or a supervisory writ proceeding. This Court does not issue advisory opinions or answer hypothetical questions, and we do not make first-instance assessments applying legal principles to facts, but allow the parties to develop issues of fact and law in the District Court. Scott v. Peterson , 2005 OK 84, ¶ 27, 126 P.3d 1232, 1239-1240. 44 We note that the issue whether a person performing a mental evaluation on another may have a conflict if that person is also selected to care for that person solely on the basis of that assessment is an issue that is not before us. 45 Scott v. Peterson , 2005 OK 84, ¶ 27, 126 P.3d at 1239-1240. We also note that David and the Berryhills raise a complaint concerning a guardian's report that is adjudicated in the companion proceeding herein, Okla. Sup. Ct. No. 112,573. 46 One New York court has noted that a cottage industry has grown up around the need for professional care supervision for older persons, especially persons with mental and physical disabilities and that many social workers and other health care professionals have been certified as geriatric care managers through a professional organization, the National Association of Professional Geriatric Care Managers. In re Mark C.H. , 28 Misc.3d 765, 767, 906 N.Y.S.2d 419, 421 (N.Y.Sur. 2010). According to one group of authors, GCMs [Geriatric Care Managers] who are admitted to full (advanced) membership in the National Association of Professional Geriatric Care Managers have master's degrees in social work, nursing, human services, or gerontology. Lisa Stewart, et al., The Interdisciplinary Team Focus: A Strategy for Developing a Successful Practice of Elder Law , 19 Nova L.Rev. 647, 653 (1995). 47 In materials filed in No. 111,961 by the Berryhills: The partial deposition of S. Buchanan, a healthcare worker in the Berrys' home, contained no testimony on any directive concerning phone calls from the Berryhills. The partial deposition by R. Hall, also a healthcare worker, stated that a nurse calls the healthcare workers to let them know that a visit has been scheduled, but contains no discussion about monitoring phone calls from the Berryhills. 48 See , e.g. , Heffron v. District Court Oklahoma County , 2003 OK 75, ¶ 3, 77 P.3d 1069, 1073 (... before appropriate relief may be granted, it must be shown that the trial court exceeded its authority or discretion in ordering or denying pretrial discovery.). 49 The order appointing guardian states that By agreement of the parties and their counsel, Christopher I. Mansfield is appointed General Guardian of the Person and Estate of the Wards. O.R. at 148. 50 See 1. Petition to Remove Guardian and for Appointment of Successor Co-Guardians, filed by James and Anita Berryhill, July 9, 2012 (O.R. at 354); 2. Amended Petition to Remove Guardian and For Appointment of Successor Co-Guardians, filed by James and Anita Berryhill, Jul 11, 2012 (O.R. at 371); 3. Answer to Amended Petition to Remove Guardian and For Appointment of Successor Co-Guardians and Alternative Cross-Claim for Appointment as General Guardian, filed by Peggy Jan Harris July 30, 2012 (O.R. at 381); 4. Reply to Answer to Amended Petition to Remove Guardian and for Appointment of Successor Co-Guardians and Answer to Alternative Cross-Claim for Appointment as General Guardian, filed by James and Anita Berryhill on August 17, 2012 (O.R. at 419). 51 Brief in Support of Application to Assume, etc., filed February 19, 2013, and Appellant's [sic] Brief in Chief, April 15, 2013. 52 Brief in Support of Emergency Application to Assume Original Jurisdiction, July 9, 2013. 53 Appellant's Brief in Chief, No. 111,492, filed April 15, 2013, at p. 30. 54 This argument is not well developed by the Berryhills and nominated counsel and the argument contains no authority. Appellant's Brief in Chief, No. 111,492, April 15, 2013, at 24-25. They claim that someone who performs an evaluation on another should not profit from that evaluation, and that Boyd and her company should not be selected to provide care to the Berrys since Boyd performed an initial evaluation. As we have previously observed, Dr. Bianco did not base his opinion of the Berrys on the preliminary evaluation performed by Boyd, and the record before us does not show how Boyd has a conflicting interest now that the Berrys have received an independent evaluation . We do not find an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge in declining to remove Boyd after Dr. Bianco's examination. 55 Appellant's reply brief in No. 111,492, filed May 17, 2013, at 8-12. 56 The application to assume original jurisdiction and petition for writs of mandamus and prohibition were filed in No. 111, 492, in this Court on February 19, 2013. 57 Lebus v. Carden , 1978 OK 91, 583 P.2d 503. 58 At the request of any party to a proceeding pursuant to the provisions of the Oklahoma Guardianship and Conservatorship Act, the court shall order that a stenographic or mechanical record of the proceeding be made. 30 O.S.2011 § 3-106 (G). It appears that no counsel requested a stenographic or mechanical record of the proceeding be made. 59 State ex rel. Bd. of Regents of University of Oklahoma v. Lucas , 2013 OK 14, ¶ 44, 297 P.3d 378, 397. 60 Brief filed in No. 112,573, February 14, 2014, in support of assuming jurisdiction by the Berryhills and David Berry, at 1. 61 Russell , 2009 OK 22, ¶¶ 21, 24, 212 P.3d at 1185, 1186. 62 Russell , 2009 OK 22, ¶¶ 14, 16, 212 P.3d at 1183. 63 Russell , 2009 OK 22, ¶ 17, 212 P.3d at 1184. 64 Chandler U.S.A., Inc. v. Tyree , 2004 OK 16, ¶ 33, 87 P.3d 598, 606. 65 This Court has commented in various contexts on the important opportunity to engage in discovery so that a party may present a developed factual record to the trier of fact. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Mothershed , 2011 OK 84, ¶ 58, 264 P.3d 1197, 1219. 66 30 O.S.2011 § 3-110 states in part: The court shall cause notice to be served of the time and place of the hearing on the petition requesting the appointment of a guardian for an incapacitated or partially incapacitated person on: 1. the subject of the proceeding; and 2. the following persons, other than the petitioner, who are known to the petitioner or whose existence and address can be ascertained by the petitioner with reasonably diligent efforts: a. the spouse, if any, of the subject of the proceeding, b. the attorney, if any, of the subject of the proceeding, c. all adult children of the subject of the proceeding, d. if there is no such adult child, the then living parent or parents of the subject of the proceeding, or e. if there is no such parent, all adult brothers and sisters of the subject of the proceeding and all adult grandchildren of the subject of the proceeding; 3. in case no person listed in paragraph 2 of this subsection is given notice, notice shall be given to at least one and not more than three of the nearest adult relatives of the subject of the proceeding who are known to the petitioner or whose existence and address can be ascertained with reasonably diligent efforts; 4. if not the petitioner, any person or organization which, in the petition, is proposed to serve as guardian or limited guardian or, to the extent such nomination is known to the petitioner, who is nominated by will or other writing to serve as guardian or limited guardian; 5. to the extent known to the petitioner: a. the person or facility having care or custody of the subject of the proceeding, and b. the Department of Human Services or the Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services, if said Departments are providing services to the subject of the proceeding; 6. as appropriate, the Veterans Administration pursuant to Section 126.8 of Title 72 of the Oklahoma Statutes; and 7. any other person as directed by the court. 67 30 O.S.2011 § 4-307 states in part: A. 1. Upon the filing of an annual report the court shall immediately cause a copy of the report to be mailed by first-class mail to: a. the persons entitled to notice pursuant to Section 2-101 of this title for minors, or b. those persons entitled to notice pursuant to paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 7 of subsection A of Section 3-110 of this title for adults, and c. the attorney of the ward, if any. 2. Attached to the copy of the report shall be a statement notifying the person receiving copies of said reports that any objection to the report must be filed within fifteen (15) days after the date of the filing of the annual report with the court. 3. Any person entitled to receive a copy of the annual report may file an objection to said report within fifteen (15) days after the filing of the annual report with the court. 68 See , e.g. , Crest Infiniti, II, LP v. Swinton , 2007 OK 77, ¶ 16, 174 P.3d 996, 1004 (The party or person from whom a deposition is sought may, with good cause to be shown, request a protective order to 'protect a party or person from annoyance, harassment, embarrassment, oppression or undue delay, burden or expense....'); Hall v. Goodwin , 1989 OK 88, n. 7, 775 P.2d 291, 295 (The party objecting to discovery must raise the objection and has the burden of establishing the existence of the privilege.). We need not explain herein the basic procedures for a person or party seeking protection from discovery. Citationizer © Summary of Documents Citing This Document Cite Name Level None Found. Citationizer: Table of Authority Cite Name Level Oklahoma Supreme Court Cases Cite Name Level 1989 OK 88, 775 P.2d 291, 69 OBJ 1473, Hall v. Goodwin Discussed 1992 OK 95, 836 P.2d 1283, 63 OBJ 1926, Whig Syndicate, Inc. v. Keyes Discussed 1993 OK 65, 852 P.2d 717, 64 OBJ 1497, Wilson v. Kane Discussed 1938 OK 424, 81 P.2d 488, 183 Okla. 274, STATE ex rel. REIRDON v. COUNTY COURT OF MARSHALL COUNTY Discussed 1994 OK 127, 885 P.2d 1358, 65 OBJ 3835, Chronic Pain Associates, Inc. v. Bubenik Discussed 2001 OK 117, 42 P.3d 863, 72 OBJ 3708, DANIEL v. DANIEL Discussed 1920 OK 263, 191 P. 594, 79 Okla. 53, KERSEY Guardian v. McDOUGAL. Cited 1931 OK 244, 299 P. 143, 149 Okla. 54, HARRISON v. ORWIG Discussed 2002 OK 67, 58 P.3d 759, CONTEREZ v. O'DONNELL Discussed at Length 2003 OK 75, 77 P.3d 1069, HEFFRON v. DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY Discussed 2004 OK 16, 87 P.3d 598, CHANDLER (U.S.A.), INC. v. TYREE Discussed 1996 OK 10, 912 P.2d 836, 67 OBJ 382, Liberty Bank and Trust Co. of Oklahoma City, N.A. v. Rogalin Discussed 2005 OK 84, 126 P.3d 1232, SCOTT v. PETERSON Discussed at Length 2006 OK 15, 131 P.3d 116, STATE v. ONE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED SIXTY-SEVEN DOLLARS Discussed at Length 1996 OK 73, 918 P.2d 1388, 67 OBJ 2060, LCR, Inc. v. Linwood Properties Discussed 2007 OK 53, 164 P.3d 137, IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF HOLLY Discussed at Length 2007 OK 77, 174 P.3d 996, CREST INFINITI II, LP v. SWINTON Discussed 2009 OK 22, 212 P.3d 1178, RUSSELL v. CHASE INVESTMENT SERVICES CORP. Discussed at Length 2011 OK 84, 264 P.3d 1197, STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. MOTHERSHED Discussed 2012 OK 8, 276 P.3d 989, IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF STANFIELD Discussed at Length 2013 OK 14, 297 P.3d 378, STATE ex rel. BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA v. LUCAS Discussed 2013 OK 20, 299 P.3d 477, MIAMI BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC v. DAVIS Discussed at Length 1978 OK 91, 583 P.2d 503, LEBUS v. CARDEN Discussed 1928 OK 321, 267 P. 268, 130 Okla. 286, STEIL v. MARSHALL Cited 2000 OK 30, 3 P.3d 154, 71 OBJ 960, Towne v. Hubbard Discussed at Length 1925 OK 506, 238 P. 956, 111 Okla. 242, Ex parte SPURRIER Discussed 1926 OK 3, 250 P. 999, 122 Okla. 110, REYNOLDS v. BROCK Discussed 1998 OK 127, 975 P.2d 889, 70 OBJ 34, Martin v. Johnson Discussed 1999 OK 10, 977 P.2d 1084, 70 OBJ 592, Towne v. Hubbard Discussed at Length Title 12. Civil Procedure Cite Name Level 12 O.S. 696.2, Judgment, Decree or Appealable Order to be Written - Preparation of Written Documents - Filing - Mailing - Effect Discussed 12 O.S. 952, Jurisdiction of Supreme Court Discussed at Length 12 O.S. 953, Final Order Defined Cited 12 O.S. 990A, Appeal to Supreme Court of Oklahoma - Filing of Petition - Rules - Procedure - Dismissal Discussed at Length 12 O.S. 993, Appeals from Certain Interlocutory Orders - Undertaking Cited Title 25. Definitions and General Provisions Cite Name Level 25 O.S. 82.1, Holidays Discussed Title 30. Guardian and Ward Cite Name Level 30 O.S. 1-111, Definitions Cited 30 O.S. 3-106, Rights of Incapacitated or Partially Incapacitated Person - Confidentiality - Relief from Costs and Fees - Record Discussed at Length 30 O.S. 3-107, Appointment of Attorney and Guardian Ad Litem - Explanation and Inquiry by Court if Subject not Represented - Record Cited 30 O.S. 3-110, Notice of Hearing on Petition Requesting Appointment of Guardian for Incapacitated or Partially Incapacitated Person Cited 30 O.S. 4-303, Account Settlement and Allowance - Reports - Consolidation of Reports - Accounting Information Cited 30 O.S. 4-306, Contents of Report on Guardianship or Limited Guardianship of Property of Ward Discussed 30 O.S. 4-307, Mailing of Copies of Annual Report Upon Filing - Hearing - Report Without Notice - Compensation - New Bond - Appointment of Counsel to Represent Ward Cited 30 O.S. 4-403, Attorney Fees Discussed at Length Title 58. Probate Procedure Cite Name Level 58 O.S. 1, Probate Jurisdiction of District Court Discussed 58 O.S. 721, Appealable Judgments and Orders of District Court Discussed at Length