SWEETEN v. LAWSON
2017 Okla. Civ. App. LEXIS 31
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2017Background
- Flo Sweeten sued the Town of Gene Autry and Mayor Kyle Lawson in replevin, seeking immediate delivery of items she claimed ownership of from the "Blue Rooster" gift shop in the town museum.
- Lawson changed the locks and denied Sweeten access; no warrant, court order, tax, or penalty supported detention.
- Town officials and a DA investigator testified about a related financial investigation and that some purchases may have involved municipal funds, but no seizure order or warrant had been issued.
- Defendants moved to dismiss/for summary judgment arguing Sweeten’s replevin is a tort claim within the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act (GTCA) and that she failed to comply with GTCA notice requirements.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Defendants on GTCA grounds and denied prejudgment delivery; on appeal the Court of Civil Appeals reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory replevin falls within GTCA scope | Replevin is possessory, not a tort, so GTCA does not apply | Replevin sounds in tort (per Gibson/Farha) and is therefore subject to GTCA notice/immunity | Court: Follow Womack — statutory replevin’s gravamen is possessory; GTCA does not bar this action |
| Whether prejudgment delivery (12 O.S. §1571) should have been granted | Sweeten showed probable merit: she purchased/operated the shop and had special ownership/interest in the inventory | Town argued some items may be municipal property and value/listing was imprecise | Court: Trial court erred; Sweeten met §1571 requirements and should be allowed to post bond for delivery |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate | Sweeten: factual disputes exist as to ownership of many items; case should proceed to discovery/trial | Defendants: testimony showed mayor acted only in official capacity and GTCA bars claims; insufficient proof of ownership | Court: Summary judgment improper—material factual disputes remain about ownership; remand for further proceedings |
| Whether naming Lawson individually was fatal variance | Sweeten: permissible to sue officer in individual name; evidence can show official capacity later | Defendants: Lawson acted as mayor and is protected under GTCA | Court: Variance is not fatal; plaintiff may amend pleadings regarding Lawson and pursue claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Womack v. City of Oklahoma City, 726 P.2d 1178 (Okla. 1986) (statutory replevin is possessory and not a tort claim to be resolved under governmental tort-immunity statutes)
- Gibson v. Copeland, 13 P.3d 989 (Okla. Civ. App. 2000) (court of appeals view that replevin may sound partly in tort and thus fall within GTCA)
- Farha v. F.D.I.C., 963 F.2d 283 (10th Cir. 1992) (analysis finding Oklahoma replevin can encompass tort and contract aspects)
- Mann v. Ridenhour, 149 P. 124 (Okla. 1915) (permitting replevin against officer sued in individual name even if acting officially; variance not fatal)