# Blakeburn

> United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Oklahoma · September 11, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11439806

## Case

- **Full name:** In re: Cris J. Shunk; Brent Blakeburn and Sonja Blakeburn v. Cris J. Shunk
- **Court:** United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Oklahoma
- **Decided:** September 11, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11439806

## Opinion text

Dated: September 11, 2026
The following is ORDERED:
Gol kK — Shae
PAUL R. THOMAS
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

IN RE:
CRIS J. SHUNK, Case No. 25-11549-T
Chapter 7
Debtor.

BRENT BLAKEBURN and SONJA
BLAKEBURN,
Plaintiffs, Adv. No. 26-01004-T
Vv.
CRIS J. SHUNK,
Defendant.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

THIS MATTER comes before the Court pursuant to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary
Judgment (the “Motion”),1 filed by Brent and Sonja Blakeburn (“Plaintiffs”); Defendant’s
Response to Motion for Summary Judgment (the “Response”),2 filed by Cris J. Shunk
(“Defendant”); and Plaintiffs’ Reply (the “Reply”).3 The Court has reviewed the Motion,
Response, and Reply, and finds the Motion must be denied. Plaintiffs hold a state court judgment
against Defendant for 1) intrusion on seclusion; 2) private nuisance; 3) intentional infliction of
emotional distress; and 4) destruction of property. In the Motion, Plaintiffs seek to except the state
court judgment debt from discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).4 In support of their request
for summary judgment, Plaintiffs rely, in substantial part, on the doctrine of issue preclusion.

“Courts use the doctrine of issue preclusion to prevent the relitigation of issues or facts
raised in a second suit on a separate claim between the parties.”5 In other words, issue preclusion
“prevents a party that has lost the battle over an issue in one lawsuit from relitigating the same
issue in another lawsuit.”6 Moreover, “[i]t is settled law that ‘the doctrine of issue preclusion, does,
under appropriate circumstances, apply in discharge exception proceedings pursuant to
§ 523(a).’”7 “The preclusive effect of a state court judgment in a subsequent federal lawsuit
generally is determined by the full faith and credit statute . . . . This statute directs a federal court

1 ECF No. 18.
2 ECF No. 19.
3 ECF No. 21.
4 Unless otherwise noted, all statutory references are to sections of the United States
Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 101, et seq.
5 Ford v. Landon (In re Landon), 619 B.R. 727, 733 (Bankr. N.D. Okla. 2020). See Bobby
v. Bies, 556 U.S. 825, 834 (2009).
6 Melnor, Inc. v. Corey (In re Corey), 583 F.3d 1249, 1251 (10th Cir. 2009).
7 In re Landon, 619 B.R. at 733 (quoting Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279, 285 n.11(1991)).
to refer to the preclusion law of the State in which judgment was rendered.”8 Because the judgment
relied on by Plaintiffs was rendered by the Tulsa County District Court, Oklahoma state law
applies.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court has made the following statements regarding the use of
issue preclusion:

When a claim or issue is sought to be barred by an earlier judgment in another
case, or when the legal bar of some prior judgment is sought to be avoided, the
party relying on the adjudication dehors the case then before the trial court must
secure admission (for the record on appeal) of the entire judgment roll (or record
proper) in the other case. Unlike the trial courts, an appellate court may not take
judicial notice of any material on file below, which is not incorporated into the
appellate record for review. The meaning, legal effect and validity of a nisi prius
adjudication cannot be assessed based solely on the four corners of a journal entry
that memorializes the terminal ruling (or some other disposition) in the case. That
assessment, both here and below, must be made upon review of the entire judgment
roll (or record proper), which consists of “. . . the petition, the process, return, the
pleadings subsequent thereto, reports, verdicts, orders, judgments, and all material
acts and proceedings of the court . . . .”9

As discussed in In re Burris, the requirement of providing the entire judgment roll applies
equally when a bankruptcy court is asked to apply preclusion doctrines:
Oklahoma courts require a party relying on issue preclusion to “produce–as proof
of its terms, effect and validity–the entire judgment roll for the case which
culminated in the decision invoked as a bar to relitigation.” Salazar v. The City of
Oklahoma City, 1999 OK 20, 976 P.2d 1056, 1061 (1999). Without the judgment
roll, no court can determine with the requisite degree of certainty what claims were
pressed for adjudication and which of the tendered issues were actually submitted
and decided. Salazar, 976 P.2d at 1061-62. Failure to produce the judgment roll is
fatal to a request that a prior judgment be given preclusive effect. Salazar, 976 P.2d
at 1062. Oklahoma bankruptcy courts recognize that the party seeking to rely on a
judgment for preclusive force has the obligation to produce the entire judgment roll
for the case in which the judgment was entered.10

8 Marrese v. Am. Acad. of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 470 U.S. 373, 380 (1985). See Exxon
Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 293 (2005).
9 Ouellette v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 918 P.2d 1363, 1367 n.25 (Okla. 1994) (citing
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 32.1 (definition of judgment roll)).
10 Burris v. Burris (In re Burris), 591 B.R. 779, 793–94 (Bankr. W.D. Okla. 2018) (footnote
omitted and emphasis added). See Grassmann v. Brown (In re Brown), 570 B.R. 98, 113 (Bankr.
As discussed above, the judgment roll consists of “the petition, the process, return, the pleadings
subsequent thereto, reports, verdicts, orders, judgments, and all material acts and proceedings of
the court[.]”11
If Plaintiffs wish to rely on the findings of the state court, they must provide this Court
with the entire judgment roll from the state court action in addition to a copy of the docket sheet
provided by the court in that action. Because Plaintiffs have not done so in the Motion, the Court
cannot determine if Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief sought under § 523(a)(6). Therefore, the
Motion must be denied. Furthermore, should the parties wish to rely on the doctrine of issue
preclusion to establish any facts or law in this proceeding at trial, they should address the specific

elements of that doctrine, and whether the issue sought to be precluded was actually litigated in
the state court action.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, at ECF
No. 18, is DENIED.

###

W.D. Okla. 2017) (“Without the entire judgment roll, it is not possible for this Court to determine
what issues were actually litigated and the legal standards employed by the State Court.”).
11 Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 32.1 (“. . . but if the items of an account, or the copies of papers
attached to the pleadings be voluminous, the court may order the record to be made by abbreviating
the same, or inserting a pertinent description thereof, or by omitting them entirely. Evidence must
not be recorded.”). See also Ouellette, 918 P.2d at 1367 n.25.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11439806. Public record. Not legal advice.