1. Did the Supreme Court err when they dismissed my case for lack of an appealable
Order (this is an interlocutory appeal) because they discerned that the parents, Josh
and Brittany Winningham had claims, after I had fully briefed that they were not
parties to the insurance contract for the accident vehicle and that their daughter
had a solely owned insurance contract and that the parents actually committed a
fraud? And according to my brief I cited:
In Hoar v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co.. 968 P.2d 1219 (OK 1998) and Shelter
Mutual Ins. Co. v. Little Jim, 927 F.2d 1132 (10th Cir. 1991). "... Hoar held that as the
plaintiffs in that case were neither parties to the insurance contract, nor third party
beneficiaries of the insurance contract, "the remedy of reformation is not available
to them." Hoar at 1223... In Advisory Comm Notes - re: Rule 17(a) "the rule should
be applied only to cases in which substitution of the real party in interest is
necessary to avoid injustice.."

2. Did they further err by not allowing a COA to review this appeal but sua sponte
dismissed it after two and half months after they reviewed my Resp to 0 Sh Cause?

3. Did they further err by denying my right to appeal because I have a "right" under
Rule 1.60,12 O.S. (d) discharge, vacate or modify or refuse to discharge, vacate or
modify a provisional remedy which affects the substantial rights of a party (12 O.S.
SS 952 (b)(2) and 12 O.S. SS 993(A)(3) the statutes I plead.

4. Did they err when after the District Court judge *refused to vacate the Dismissal
Order of plaintiff Madelyn based on fraud in obtaining the judgment where she
denied my Mot to V and cited an improper and contrary to law order (Appen C PIE
#2) Order - 12 O.S. 1031.1 to justify this denial, quoting that law which supports 30
days to respond and denied it as "untimely", but I pleaded the law - based on fraud,
and cited the statute supporting 12 O.S. 1031.4 supporting a two year timing to
challenge and offered the evidence. In my Am Mot to Rec - Mot to Vacate -1
submitted to J. Greenough and ignored by her and the Supreme Court in my (Appen
I) I supplied 8 exhibits proving Madelyn had her soley owned insurance policy and
her parents had their own policy. She did not acknowledge any of this.

5. Did the Sup Court err in ignoring this Order, based on fraud and did not dismissed?

Did the Supreme Court err in dismissing the case for lack of an appealable order and denying the right to appeal despite alleged fraud and jurisdictional issues?