SHIRLEY L. JONES, BARBARA PETTY, AND LAWRENCE MERL SCHMOE, Plaintiffs/Appellants,
v.
GARYANNA STALICK, LILA BROWNING AND DEBRA HAZELETT, Defendants/Appellees, and Grayhorse, Inc., an Oklahoma Corporation, Nominal Defendant, Annette Smith and Terry Schmoe, Third-Party Defendants.
Mandate Issued: 12/05/2017
APPEAL
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SEMINOLE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA
HONORABLE TIMOTHY OLSEN, JUDGE
Johnny
G. Beech, M. Hossein Farzaneh, SPENCER, FANE, L.L.P.,
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Plaintiffs/Appellants,
Richard E. Butner, Rhett Butner, Wewoka, Oklahoma, for
Defendants/Appellees.
ROBERT
D. BELL, JUDGE
¶1
Plaintiffs/Appellants, Shirley L. Jones, Barbara Petty and
Lawrence Merl Schmoe, brought this action against
Defendants/Appellees, Garyanna Stalick, Lila Browning and
Debra Hazelett, to recover mineral interests and punitive
damages. Plaintiffs alleged the theories of constructive
trust, slander of title, fraud, deceit and conspiracy to
commit fraud. The mineral interests were previously owned by
Tracie Schmoe, deceased. Tracie was Lawrence's mother.
Lawrence assigned his mineral interests to his daughters,
Shirley and Barbara, and he was later added as a necessary
party-plaintiff for the fraud-related claims. Garyanna and
Lila are Tracie's daughters. Debra Hazelett, is
Lila's daughter. Garyanna and Lila assigned their mineral
interests to Debra.
¶2
Plaintiffs sought to recover the minerals from Debra, who
holds legal title to same. Plaintiffs also sought damages for
the fraud perpetrated by Defendants when they filed
affidavits of heirship claiming to be Tracie's sole
heirs. The trial court held that as a matter of law, Shirley
and Barbara lacked standing to pursue the fraud claims
because Defendants filed the affidavit of heirship when
Lawrence held the mineral interest and Lawrence cannot assign
his tort claims to his daughters. The court also held
Lawrence cannot lodge a fraud claim against Defendants
because he failed to file an amended petition prior to the
court-imposed deadline for filing pleadings. The trial court
granted partial summary judgment to Defendants and dismissed
the fraud-related claims. After de novo review of
the record, we affirm the trial court's partial summary
judgment dismissing Shirley's and Barbara's tort
claims. We reverse the dismissal of Lawrence's tort
claims and remand this matter for further proceedings.
¶3
On May 2, 1994, Tracie Schmoe died seized with mineral
interests in Seminole County. Tracie was survived by her five
children, Lawrence, Garyanna, Lila, Russell Schmoe (now
deceased and survived by third party defendants), and Ray
Othel Schmoe (now deceased without surviving children). On
January 8, 2010, Garyanna and Lila filed affidavits of
heirship representing that they and the Estate of Ray Schmoe
were Tracie's sole heirs. Barbara claimed that on August
31, 2012, she first discovered the affidavits of heirship.
Garyanna and Lila then transfered their interests in the
minerals to Debra. On September 10, 2012, Lawrence filed an
affidavit of heirship delineating all of Tracie's heirs.
On April 15, 2013, Lawrence, who is in his nineties, assigned
his mineral interests to his daughters. Shirley and Barbara
filed this lawsuit, including, inter alia, a claim
for fraud. On March 22, 2016, the trial court issued an
unopposed order finding Lawrence was a necessary party and
allowing his joinder as a Plaintiff. Lawrence never filed a
petition in the proceeding. Notwithstanding, the parties and
the trial court treated Lawrence as a Plaintiff.
¶4
On November 21, 2016, Defendants filed an alias pre-trial
disclosure, wherein they moved for a summary judgment
dismissing the fraud claims. Defendants argued:
DEFENDANTS are not asking this Court to dismiss the fraud
claim and supersede [sic] the province of a jury but to
make a LEGAL FINDING that the claim has been assigned and
it cannot be pursued by the ASSIGNEES [Shirley and
Barbara].
(Captalization in the original). The trial court dismissed
Shirley's and Barbara's fraud claims for lack of
standing. It also dismissed Lawrence's fraud claims
because he never filed a petition alleging fraud within the
court-imposed deadline for filing pleadings. The trial court
denied Lawrence's unopposed motion to file an amended
petition. Plaintiffs now appeal.
¶5
Shirley and Barbara have claims remaining against Defendants.
Thus, the trial court certified this interlocutory order for
immediate appeal under 12 O.S. 2011 §994. This appeal
stands submitted for accelerated appellate review on the
trial court record under Rules 4 and 13, Rules for
District Courts of Oklahoma, 12 O.S.Supp. 2013, Ch. 2,
App., and Rule 1.36, Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules,
12 O.S.Supp. 2013, Ch. 15, App. 1. An order granting summary
disposition disposes solely of questions of law and therefore
it is reviewable by a de novo standard. Andrew
v. Depani-Sparkes, 2017 OK 42, ¶27, 396 P.3d 210.
¶6
For reversal, Plaintiffs alleged several propositions of
error. We find one to be dispositive. In the proceeding
below, the trial court held Lawrence is the proper plaintiff
for the fraud claims and the court allowed his joinder as a
necessary party-plaintiff. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs did not
move to substitute Lawrence in his daughters' place with
respect to the existing fraud-related claims. On the eve of
trial, the trial court decided Lawrence should have filed his
own petition alleging the fraud claims. Because Lawrence did
not file a pleading and the deadline for filing pleadings
passed, the trial court dismissed Lawrence's
fraud-related claims.
¶7
On appeal, Plaintiffs contend the trial court erred when it
dismissed Lawrence's fraud-related claims. They point out
Lawrence was added as a necessary party-plaintiff; thus, the
trial court should have automatically substituted Lawrence in
his daughters' place for the fraud-related claims.
Oklahoma law supports Plaintiffs' contention. As a joined
party-plaintiff, Oklahoma law treats Lawrence, the real party
in interest for the ...