A state appeals court has ruled in support of a northern Oklahoma couple who sued the city of Enid over damages caused by the construction several years ago of a water line built to carry water from Kaw Lake to Enid.
The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals determined Garfield County District Court Judge Tom Newby got it wrong in siding with the City of Enid in February of 2025. (CJ-2024-252)
The dispute began in the summer of 2015 when Enid began construction of a large water line and employed a construction contractor. Ronald and Sandra Regier owned property near the lake and granted four easements across their property. They claimed the construction on their property damaged the topsoil and equipment and structures were left permanently on the land “leaving them unable to mow grass in certain areas, creating a hazard for drivers and pedestrians.” They also contend they suffered a crop loss because of the construction. So they sought relief from the city of Enid and eventually filed a lawsuit.
The City responded by asking the court to dismiss the suit saying the Regiers failed to comply with notice and filing requirements under the Governmental Tort Claims Act and to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
As detailed in the Court of Civil Appeals explanation, “Plaintiffs claim that a February 1, 2024, complaint letter they sent to City’s legal department substantially complied with the notice provisions of the Act. City contends the letter fails to make a monetary demand from Plaintiffs and was not presented in time.”
The judge granted summary judgment in support of the city of Enid.
Chief Appeals Court Judge Stacie L. Hixon determined the original letter sent by the Regiers was enough to meet the tort claims act, pointing out “The letter demanded compensation for crop loss and threatened to file suit in the district court. Attached to that letter as an exhibit is a prior letter from Plaintiff Ronald Regier to the City of Enid, dated October 23, 2023, which specifically identifies at least some of the monetary damage Plaintiffs claim to have sustained as a result, in particular for damage to crops and removal of topsoil.”
The Judge found the letter to be sufficient and the city’s argument on the point “is without merit” and it was not entitled to summary judgment. Judge Hixon had no opinion whether the Regiers were entitled to relief.
“On review of the record presented, we find that Plaintiffs complied with the GTCA, and that Defendants failed to meet their burden on the record presented that Plaintiffs claims were time-barred or that they are otherwise entitled to summary judgment on those claims. We reverse the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in its entirety, and remand for further proceedings.”
The case returns to Garfield County District Court.