MCBEE v. FRAIRE, 2022 OK 22

Plaintiff Vickie McBee sued Efren Fraire, Augustine Fraire, and Fraire Bricklayers, Inc.; defendants moved to dismiss for untimely service of process.
The trial court sustained the motion to dismiss based on failure to effect service within the 180‑day statutory period in 12 O.S. Supp. 2017 § 2004(I).
The appeal reached the Oklahoma Supreme Court (Case No. 119190), which considered whether prior authority controlled the outcome.
The Court invoked Okla. Sup. Ct. Rule 1.201 to summarily dispose of appeals when a prior controlling appellate decision is dispositive.
The Court determined its earlier decision in McBee v. Shanahan Home Design, 2021 OK 60, 499 P.3d 1, presented the same primary legal question: whether the State’s COVID‑19 joint emergency (SCAD) orders suspended the 180‑day service deadline.
Applying that precedent, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State’s COVID‑19 joint emergency (SCAD) orders suspended the 180‑day statutory time to effect service under 12 O.S. § 2004(I)	McBee: the SCAD emergency orders suspended the 180‑day deadline, so service was timely	Fraire: service remained untimely despite the SCAD orders	The Court held Shanahan controls and treated the SCAD orders as dispositive on the suspension issue; reversal and remand followed
Whether summary disposition under Okla. Sup. Ct. Rule 1.201 was appropriate	McBee: prior controlling decision (Shanahan) is dispositive, so summary disposition is proper	Fraire: (argued that dismissal was correct; no distinguishing precedent)	The Court applied Rule 1.201 and summarily reversed the trial court based on the prior decision

McBee v. Shanahan Home Design, 499 P.3d 1 (Okla. 2021) (addressing whether Oklahoma’s joint COVID‑19 emergency orders suspended the 180‑day service‑of‑process deadline)