M ORE L AW
LEXAPEDIA
Salus Populi Suprema Lex Esto

Information
About MoreLaw
Contact MoreLaw

Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 04-14-2013

Case Style: Norman J. Harris v. Susan Marks Harris

Case Number: CJ-2008-7519

Judge: Lisa T. Davis

Court: District Court, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Andrew Lee Walding and Blake Patton

Defendant's Attorney: Murray E. Abowitz and Michael N. Brown

Description: Norman J. Harris sued Susan Marks Harris, D. Todd Riddles and Cheek, Cheek & Cheek claiming:

1. Plaintiffs, Norma J. Harris (“Norma”) and Glenn E. Harris (“Bud”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), are individuals. They are citizens, residents, and domiciliaries of Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma.

2. The first Defendant, Susan Marks Harris (“Susan Harris”), is an thdividual. Presently, she is a citizen, resident, and domiciliary of Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma. She also was a citizen, resident, and domiciliary of Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma, at the time the claims Plaintiffs assert herein arose and/or accrued.

3. The second Defendant, D. Todd Riddles, is an individual. Upon information and belief, he presently is a citizen, resident, and domiciliary of Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma, and also was a citizen, resident, and domiciliary of Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma, at the time the claims Plaintiffs assert herein arose and/or accrued.

4. The third Defendant, Cheek, Cheek & Cheek, knows also as “The Cheek Law Firm,” upon information and belief, is an unincorporated association with its principal place of business located at 311 N. Harvey Avenue, in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Defendant D. Todd Riddles holds himself out to the public as a partner with The Cheek Law Firm.

5. Each Defendant is subject to the jurisdiction of the Court and this Court is vested with the authority to determine the claims for relief asserted and to enter judgment accordingly.

6. Venue in the District Court of Oklahoma County is properly laid.

STATEMENT OF TILE CASE

7. Defendant Susan Harris formerly was a daughter-in-law of Plaintiffs by virtue of her marriage to their son, Glenn S. Harris (“Glenn”), on November 9, 1996. On January 30, 2006, Susan Harris filed for a divorce from Glenn for the second time. She first filed for a divorce from Glenn on December 9, 2004.

8. When Glenn married Susan Harris in 1996 he owned — as Trustee of his revocable trust — real property physically situated just east of Eastern and south of the Kilpatrick Turnpike in Oklahoma County. Glenn acquired this land during 1993 and later hired a builder to custom-build a home on the property. He moved into the home during January of 1995. This residence was referred to as “the Silverleaf residence” or simply “Silverleaf’ because of its Silverleaf Lane mailing address. During her marriage to Glenn, Susan Harris never was added to the Silverleaf title as an owner of record.

9. Before Susan Harris married Glenn, she was married to and divorced from Robert C. Muzio and she was known as “Susan Marks Muzio.” In 1989, Susan Harris (then Susan Marks Muzio) and her then-husband, Robert C. Muzio, bought a house in northwest Oklahoma City with the street address of 12008 Peppertree Place. Susan Harris (then Susan Marks Muzio) participated in the pre-contract negotiations to buy the Peppertree Place residence. Susan Harris (then Susan Marks Muzio) also signed a written contract to purchase the Peppertree Place home, paid an earnest money deposit, and went to and participated in a formal real estate closing — all before moving into the Peppertree Place residence.

10. When Susan Harris married Glenn in 1996, she was not ignorant about or unfamiliar with the formalities of a real estate transaction including the signing of a written offer to purchase by the buyer, the written acceptance of the offer to purchase by the seller, and the formal closing of the transaction at a title company office that follows.

11. After Susan Harris (then Susan Marks) married Glenn in 1996, Susan moved into the Silverleaf residence. They lived in that home until mid-July of 2005 when they vacated those premises and moved into the Quail Creek neighborhood in northwest Oklahoma City.

12. The home into which Glenn and Susan Harris moved physically is located at 3325 Oak Hollow Road. At the time, the home was owned by Norma and Bud Harris, in their capacities as trustees of their revocable trust, according to the Register of Deeds in the Office of the Clerk of Oklahoma County. Norma and Bud entered the chain of title for the 3325 Oak Hollow Road residence as grantees to a Warranty Deed filed of record on February 11, 2003, at Book 8733, Page 1430.

13. Norma and Bud’s intent was to update and remodel the 3325 Oak Hollow Road residence and resell it for a profit. Their plan was disrupted sixteen days later — on February 27, 2003 — when they were served with a Summons and copy of a Petition filed by a previous Grantor in the chain of title, Paula J. Moorad (“Moorad”). Moorad filed suit claiming she was swindled out of her ownership of the 3325 Oak Hollow Road residence by her Grantees, who where Norma and Bud’s Grantors.

14. Moorad’s claims were tried to the bench during August of 2004. The presiding judge ruled against her and the Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law were entered on August 26, 2004. Moorad appealed on September 24, 2004, and the appellate briefing cycle concluded on June 22, 2005. The trial court rulings were affirmed by the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals on September 5, 2006, and Moorad petitioned for a Writ of Certiorari which was denied January 16, 2007.

15. While the Moorad litigation was pending, the 3325 Oak Hollow Road residence was not “marketable” under the Oklahoma Marketable Title Standards because of the litigious uncertainty defect or “cloud” the Moorad lawsuit placed on the title held by Norma and Bud Harris.

16. The 3325 Oak Hollow Road residence was unoccupied when Susan Harris filed for divorce from Glenn Harris the first time, on December 9, 2004. Nor was it “on the market” or listed for sale at the time Susan Harris filed for divorce the first time.

17. During the first divorce proceeding filed by Susan Harris against Glenn Harris, Susan Harris was granted exclusive possession of the Silverleaf residence to the exclusion of Glenn Harris. Glenn Harris moved temporarily from the Silverleaf residence into Norma and Bud Harris’s home at 3324 Oak Hollow Road. Norma and Bud’s 3324 Oak Hollow Road residence is across the street from the 3325 Oak Hollow Road residence.

18. Glenn Harris later asked Norma and Bud for permission to move temporarily into the 3325 Oak Hollow Road residence. At this time, January of 2005, Norma and Bud were in the final stage of completing a substantial remodel of the 3325 Oak Hollow Road residence and it was vacant.

19. Susan Harris and Glenn Harris reconciled on or about April 22, 2005, and their Joint Notice of Agreed Dismissal ending their first divorce proceeding against one another was filed on May 13, 2005. Glenn returned to the Silverleaf residence to reside.

20. After Glenn reconciled with Susan Harris, he approached Norma and Bud Harris and asked for their permission to move into the 3325 Oak Hollow Road residence with Susan Harris, her children from the Muzio marriage, and their (Glenn and Susan Harris’s) children. The 3325 Oak Hollow Road residence still was unoccupied and had not been placed on “on the market” for sale because of the Moorad litigation.

21. Norma and Bud Harris agreed to permit Glenn Harris, Susan Harris and their children to move into the 3325 Oak Hollow Road residence for an indefinite, though temporary period. In return, Glenn Harris agreed to pay, during his occupancy of the 3325 Oak Hollow Road residence, for the general maintenance and upkeep of that home and to pay the utility bills. Norma and Bud Harris continued to pay the property insurance premiums and the property tax assessments attributable to the 3325 Oak Hollow Road residence.

22. Later, in the spring of 2005, and before Glenn Harris, Susan Harris, and their children moved from the Silverleaf residence to the 3325 Oak Hollow Road residence, Glenn Harris approached his parents again; this time to inquire about purchasing the 3325 Oak Hollow Road residence for 8550,000 — the amount that Glenn Harris estimated his parents had invested in the home. Norma and Bud Harris expressly rejected the notion of selling the 3325 Oak Hollow Road residence to Glenn Harris and it never was discussed again between or among them.

23. Norma and Bud Harris nevertheless assured Glenn Harris that he and Susan were free to move into the 3325 Oak Hollow Road residence as previously discussed without a written lease.

24. Susan Harris was not a party to or an observer of the discussions between and among Glenn Harris and his parents regarding Glenn Harris seeking permission to move into the 3325 Oak Hollow Road residence with Susan Harris and their respective children, or the discussion in which Glenn Harris offered to buy the house for $550,000.

25. By her own admission, Susan Harris never had a conversation with Norma or Bud Harris, either individually or among the three of them, in which a contract to purchase the 3325 Oak Hollow Road residence was discussed, negotiated, or agreed to.

26. Glenn Harris, Susan Harris, and their respective children moved from the Silverleaf residence to the 3325 Oak Hollow Road residence during July of 2005. Before the move, Glenn and Susan Harris arranged for some work to be done to the 3325 Oak Hollow Road residence. The work was performed prior to and after they moved into the Oak Hollow Road residence.

27. When Norma Harris became aware of the work occurring, she questioned Glenn about it. She was concerned about what — if anything — was being done to “her house.” (Norma Harris has been in the real estate business in Oklahoma City for more than thirty years, both as an investor and as a realtor.) 28. Glenn Harris assured her most of the work either was cosmetic, e.g., painting upstairs rooms and replacing certain areas of carpet; or intended to better accommodate Glenn Harris and his family, e.g., placing a wall in a room to split it into two bedrooms; or to meet his personal preferences, e.g., replacing existing Bermuda grass with fescue sod, installing fencing to contain the dogs, and repairing the pool Norma Harris had discussed filling in.

29. In Norma Harris’s opinion, the work was unnecessary, but she did not overly object until she learned of a change that was under way which negatively would have affected the character of “her house” — i.e., removing brick flooring in the foyer which was the “signature” of the home’s builder. Susan Harris intended to replace the brick floor with other flooring. Norma Harris strenuously objected; the brick removal ceased immediately; and the brick which had been removed was reinstalled.

30. Susan Harris was aware of the Moorad litigation before she moved with Glenn Harris from the Silverleaf residence to the 3325 Oak Hollow Road residence.

31. Susan Harris again filed for a divorce from Glenn Harris — this time on January 30, 2006.

32. Norma and Bud Harris soon learned of Susan Harris’s divorce filing, and on February 5, 2006, they personally served written eviction notices on Glenn and on Susan Harris informing each of them that their tenancy in the 3325 Oak Hollow Road residence was being terminated. They were given thirty days to vacate the premises.

33. After receiving the notice to vacate, Glenn Harris, who at the time was representing himself as a prose party in the divorce case filed against him by Susan Harris’s divorce attorneys, emailed one of the attorneys to inform him of the eviction:

At approximately 8:39 a.m. my parents Glenn. E. “Bud” & Norma Harris served Susie & myself a 30 day notice to vacate the premises at 3325 Oak Hollow Road, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73120. They have continuously owned this property since approximately December 2002, and graciously allowed our family to live in it rent free until I got back on my feet financially. This house has title problems, however it is close to being resolved, and there is no way my parents can allow Susie to tie up a property they own in the middle of her divorce. The house sat empty from the date of purchase to July 2005 when we moved in.

34. Glenn Harris forwarded a copy of his email to Susan Harris and on February 6, 2006, Susan Harris emailed her divorce lawyers to tell them she had received the eviction notice from Norma and Bud Harris and to ask “how can you evict someone that you don’t have a lease with?” while opining “there was another way to do this other than maliciously.” Susan Harris forwarded a copy of this email to Kenneth W. Klingenberg (“Klingenberg”), the attorney/certified public accountant she had engaged or was engaging to represent her as an accountant in her divorce case.

35. Susan Harris began to shop for houses to buy in the Quail Creek and other neighborhoods.

36. On February 11, 2006, Susan Harris sent an email to her first set of attorneys in her divorce case, and to Klingenberg, telling them she had seen in the local newspaper that Norma and Bud Harris had purchased the Silverleaf residence from Glenn Harris’s Trust and that it was “interesting that the purchase price is the exact amount that we [she and Glenn Harris] had agreed with Bud and Norma to buy 3325 Oak Hollow for.” She also told them she would bring the newspaper with her to a meeting scheduled tentatively for February 14, 2006. The meeting was to be attended by her divorce attorneys, Klingenberg, and her sisters, Bliss Marks Morris and Merrie Marks Duncan. Susan Harris characterized the planned meeting as “kind of a big pow wow (sic).”

37. The meeting actually occurred on or about February 20, 2006, and during the meeting, Susan Harris advised to her divorce lawyers that she lived in her mother-in-law’s — i.e., Norma Harris’s — house. One of her divorce lawyers represented this fact to the presiding judge, in open court on the record, four days later — on February 24, 2006 — during a hearing at which Susan Harris was in attendance.

38. By February 27, 2006, Susan Harris, based on her email that day to her divorce attorneys, and to Klingenberg, had decided to search for a legal loophole relating to her occupancy of the 3325 Oak Hollow Road residence stating that she was “very interested in what the real estate attorney has to say.” Upon information and belief, the “real estate” attorney to whom she was referring in her email was D. Todd Riddles.

39. In her March 1, 2006, email to Klingenberg, Susan Harris reported to him that she had spoken with a real estate attorney named “John Riddles.” Upon information and belief, “John Riddles” actually was D. Todd Riddles. She also infonned Klingenberg in her email that by then she had spoken with “John Riddles” twice about the eviction notice and that he had “ways to prove” she had an enforceable agreement to buy the 3325 Oak Hollow Road residence from Norma and Bud Harris “without a written contract.” She specifically inquired of Klingenberg in her email about the “leverage power” the “house issue” would give to her.

40. Klingenberg responded on March 2, 2006, stating: “Although the house issue should provide you leverage, I am unable to access (sic) how much or how little it may provide as Glenn and his parents are not acting as most people in this situation would. I am sorry I do not have a better response.”

41. On March 2, 2006, Susan Harris emailed to her sister, Bliss Marks Morris, to tell her about her meeting with D. Todd Riddles: “However, very interesting new strategy o the house ... met with real estate attorney ... would love to discuss with you and get your input but don’t want to disturb your vacation! Let me know if you could take a phone call operating under a bit of a timeline as the sheriff may be escorting me out Wed. This requires all Marks brainpower.”

42. On or about that same day, i.e., March 2, 2006, Susan Harris submitted a $380,000 written offer to purchase a home in Quail Creek.

43. In a March 3, 2006, email to Klingenberg, Susan Harris informed him that if Glenn did not “move on this” — i.e., if Glenn did not help Susan Harris buy the house on which she made the $380,000 offer — she then would sue Norma and Bud Harris to “quiet” the title to the 3325 Oak Hollow Road house in her name, Susan Marks Harris, and that she would base her “quiet” title lawsuit on an alleged “oral purchase contract” theory. She also informed Klingenberg that “[t]his way we have done everything possible to try to offer a solution to the housing dilemma within our power.”

44. On March 6, 2006, D. Todd Riddles wrote a letter on behalf of Susan Harris to the attorney representing Norma and Bud Harris. In the letter, D. Todd Riddles informed their attorney that Susan Harris would not vacate the 3325 Oak Hollow Road residence. His exact words were:

I represent Ms. Susie Harris with regard to the [3325 Oak Hollow Road] property. Contrary to your February 8, 2006 letter, Ms. Harris and her husband entered into a contract to purchase the house at 3325 Oak Hollow Road from your clients [Norma and Bud Harris]. Since moving into the house, Ms. Harris and her husband have maintained and made improvements to the house. Ms. Harris has no intention of moving her family out of the house as directed in your letter. *** Any action for forcible entry and detainer filed by your clients will be treated as a breach of contract and countered with an action to quiet title.

45. On March 7, 2006, Susan Harris emailed Klingenberg to tell him D. Todd Riddles “was wondering about some documentation” to support her purported “breach of contract” and “quiet” title claims against Norma and Bud Harris. Specifically, she wanted to know if Glenn’s Trust had written a check in the amount of $4,155.52 for property taxes — presumably for the 3325 Oak Hollow Road property taxes — made payable to the “Oklahoma Tax Commission.”

46. On March 8, 2006, a Summons and Affidavit in Support of Action for Forcible Entry and Detainer (“FED”) was sewed on Susan Harris. The intent of the filing was to remove Susan Harris from the 3325 Oak Hollow Road residence and to return possession to its owners of record, Norma and Bud Harris.

47. On March 15, 2006, Susan Harris, through her real estate attorney, D. Todd Riddles, filed an Answer and Counterclaim to the FED through which she asserted she was in “lawful possession” of the 3325 Oak Hollow Road residence asserting that during the summer of 2005; and that she and Glenn had entered into an “oral purchase contract” with Norma and Bud Harris to buy the residence for $550,000. She also asserted the $550,000 purchase price was to be paid within a reasonable time after the conclusion of the Moorad litigation.

48. Susan Harris also asserted in her Answer and Counterclaim that Norma and Bud Harris were in “breach” of an “oral purchase contract” based on their filing of the FED action to remove Susan Harris from the 3325 Oak Hollow Road premises. Susan Harris claimed she had “suffered damages in an amount in excess of $10,000.”

49. Susan Harris andlor D. Todd Riddles hired Klingenberg to be their “expert witness” against Norma and Bud Harris in addition to being her accountant in the divorce proceeding. 50. Because Susan Harris asserted in her Counterclaim that she had an “oral purchase contract” to buy the 3325 Oak Hollow Road residence, a Transfer Order was entered on March 15, 2006, and the case was transferred to the Civil Jury docket. Soon after the transfer occurred, Susan Harris entered this note to her journal: “Talked to Todd Riddles (good judge) *Leverage*”.

51. On April 7, 2006, D. Todd Riddles wrote a letter to Susan Harris to inform her that as he anticipated, Norma and Bud Harris had sued Susan Harris for “ejectment” from the 3325 Oak Hollow Road residence. He also informed that Norma and Bud Harris asked the Court to order her to pay rent until she was removed from the 3325 Oak Hollow Road house.

52. At 1:16:58 p.m. on May 11,2006, Susan Harris sent an email to Klingenberg to which she attached a file containing her “narrative form” Answers to Interrogatories she had prepared for D. Todd Riddles. The Answers to hiterrogatories actually served by D. Todd Riddles did not closely resemble the “narrative form” Answers she emailed to Klingenberg according to her email:

p.s. I have attached the interrogatory narrative that I provided to Todd Riddles; unfortunately it is quite lengthy. I will be happy to forward you what he filed, which obviously looks quite different. He is planning on having a conversation with Mr. Fagin regarding the ejectment/breach of contract lawsuit as it relates to the divorce action. Susan Harris sent copies of her email to Klingenberg, at the same time, to Mr. Fagin and to D. Todd Riddles, and about three-and-one-half hours later, she sent a second email to Ken Klingenberg stating: “Ken, Please retum the email and attachment that I inadvertently sent you today titled Interrogatories[.] Susie.” On the afternoon of the next day, May 12, 2006, at 3:17:47 p.m., Klingenberg replied to the Susan Harris “oops-I-made-a-mistake-bydeliberately-sending-you-the-interrogatory-narrative” email stating: “I hope you get the attachment.”

53. Ms. Fagin replaced Susan Harris’s first set of attorneys in the divorce action.

54. On May 19, 2006, Susan Harris emailed to D. Todd Riddles that it was her recollection that Norma Harris paid approximately $350,000 for the 3325 Oak Hollow Road residence. She also told D. Todd Riddles that it “seems” like she (Susan Harris) “knew about the amount of work she [Norma Harris] put in and the legal costs and most likely the $550 [thousandi number.”

55. On June 15, 2006, D. Todd Riddles sent an email message to Susan Harris stating he had a question about “the potential fraud claim involving the house” and their need — his and Susan Harris’s — to come up with a “motive” for Glenn and his parents, Norma and Bud Harris, to get her (Susan Harris) out of the Silverleaf residence.

56. In his June 15, 2006, email, D. Todd Riddles also discussed his concern about being able to manufacture — i.e., “can” — a motive for fraud:

Susie, I spoke to Arnold [i.e., Mr. Fagin] and I think it would be good for me to sit in on your meeting with him tomorrow morning while he prepares you for your deposition [in the divorce case]. ‘‘ I have a question concerning the potential fraud claim involving the house. In order to be successful, we would need to show some motive for Glenn and his parents to get you out of the Silverleaf house and into the Quail Creek house where they would later claim that you were just an at will tenant, According to Arnold [Fagin], if the Silverleaf property was his separate property going into the marriage, you would only obtain a partial interest in the property if [he] used funds obtained during the marriage to pay the mortgage payment and then, you would only acquire 50 % of principal payments that were made during the marriage. You would not gain equity due to normal appreciation but you would gain equity that was created by improvements paid for by either of you during the marriage. I could not remember for sure if you guys ever did any major renovation to the property. It is my recollection that you did do a Major renovation to the Silverleaf property. Is this correct and if so, what all did it include and how much did it cost. I am not sure yet how I will can [sic] this to motive of fraud unless he/they believed that be getting you out of the Silverleaf house, he could avoid having to give you anything when it sold Thanks, Todd

57. Less than two hours later that same day, June 15, 2006, D. Todd Riddles sent Susan Harris another email stating he understood that his attorney fees were “not likely to be paid anytime soon” while describing how he (D. Todd Riddles) intended to “expose” Glenn, for the “type” of person he (D. Todd Riddles) believed Glenn to be, in a deposition he (D. Todd Riddles) would take of Glenn:

I don’t know if there will be any overlap but I thought it would be a good idea in case there is something that you did not tell me because you may not have thought it is relevant to this case but it is in the divorce or I might learn something about what Glenn [Harris] has done that I may want to ask him about in the deposition. I obviously do not want to run up a bill. Especially since the bill is not likely to be paid anytime soon. However, I would rather appear and not get paid than not show up and miss something that could be important to the success of the house case. In the other hand, I don’t think that it is imperative that I be there. I had not planned on adding anything at the meeting unless asked. Arnold [Fagin] has only scheduled 1.5 hours for the meeting so I don’t want to get the meeting off track by being there.

Obviously, child custody issues would have no overlap to the issues in the house case. However, Glenn’s conduct involving the custody of the children could be something that I want to ask him about in his deposition in an effort to expose him for the tie (sic) of person that he is. I won’t try to define what kind of person he is because I am not sure I could. I don’t have to tell you that. In any event, I will be there unless I hear from you otherwise. Thank you for the detail on the Silverleaf improvements. Be sure that Arnold [Fagin] knows about the improvements. It would seem to me that he would want to seek a share of the proceeds from the Silverleaf house for you in the divorce. I am sure that he has already done so or intends to do so.

58. On or about June 29 andlor 30, 2006, D. Todd Riddles deposed Glenn.

59. On July 6, 2006, D. Todd Riddles called Mr. Fagin to report on Susan Harris’s performance at her deposition in her lawsuit against Norma and Bud Harris. According to Mr. Fagin, D. Todd Riddles reported that “despite Susan saying that she felt like a ‘lamb being led to slaughter’ he believed that her deposition went reasonably well. He said that on a scale of ito 10, he would rate Susan’s deposition a strong 6 or 7.”

60. On or about July 17, 2006, Susan Harris, through her attorney, D. Todd Riddles, listed more than forty witnesses on her Witness List to support her “oral purchase contract” claim. The witnesses included her six- and eight-year-old children by Glenn Harris

— Norma and Bud Harris’s grandchildren.

61. Also on July 17, 2006, Susan Harris, through her attorney, D. Todd Riddles, sought leave of court to amend her Counterclaim against Norma and Bud Harris, and to assert a Cross-Claim against Glenn Harris, stating specifically: “Based on the [deposition] testimony of Norma J. Harris, Glenn E. Harris, and Glenn S. Harris, Defendant Susan Harris believes there is sufficient evidence to support a claim of fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud by Glenn E. Harris, Norma J. Harris and Glenn S. Harris.” Leave to amend was granted without objection on August 1, 2006. 62. On August 8, 2006, Susan Harris informed Klingenberg in a typed letter that to settle the divorce case with Glenn Harris she wanted the 3325 Oak Hollow Road residence to be conveyed to her by Norma and Bud Harris. Specifically, she told Klingenberg this:

Option 1: Oak Hollow House: Free and clear and contingent upon a property inspection, and appraisal with professionals of my choice. If all is satisfactory there, I will live in the house rent free until the cloud is removed from the title at which point it will be deeded to me.

Later in her letter she told Klingenberg that “they” — i.e., Glenn Harris, Norma Harris, and Bud Han-is — would “get” a “[rjelease of the Oak Hollow Lawsuit” in return.

63. On August 28, 2006, Susan Harris, through her attorney, D. Todd Riddles, filed her amended Counterclaim against Norma and Bud Harris re-asserting her claim they were in breach of an “oral purchase contract” the terms which were: (a) move into 3325 Oak Hollow Road residence in late June or early July 2005; (b) have repairs made “as agreed”; (c) maintain the house “as agreed”; and (d) pay $550,000 purchase price within a “reasonable” time after the final resolution of the Moorad litigation. Susan Harris also re-stated in her filing that she was in “continuous lawful possession” of the property; that she had “equitable title” to the property under “Oklahoma law”; and that Norma and Bud Harris either should be ordered to pay her “in excess of $10,000 or to “specifically perform” the “oral purchase contract” Susan Harris alleged.

64. Susan Harris, through D. Todd Riddles, also claimed in her August 28, 2006, filing that Norma and Bud Harris conspired with Glenn Harris to “lure” her from the Silverleaf residence to the 3325 Oak Hollow Road residence under the “pretense” Norma and Bud Harris would sell the home to Susan Harris (along with Glenn Harris), and that Norma and Bud Harris testified in their depositions — taken by D. Todd Riddles — that they (Norma and Bud Harris) “never had any intention of selling” the home to Susan Harris (and Glenn S. Harris).

65. Susan Harris, through D. Todd Riddles, also claimed in her August 28, 2006, filing that Norma and Bud Harris knew that Susan Harris “believed” she was buying the 3325 Oak Hollow Road residence based on a conversation they (Norma and Bud Harris) had with her before she (Susan Harris) moved from the Silverleaf residence to the 3325 Oak Hollow Road residence.

66. Susan Harris, through D. Todd Riddles, also claimed in her August 28, 2006, filing that she was entitled to a Judgment against Norma and Bud Harris for an amount “in excess of $10,000” because of the “conspiracy to commit fraud” she alleged.

67. Finally, Susan Harris, through D. Todd Riddles, claimed she was entitled to the payment of her attorney fees and court costs based on breach of “oral purchase contract” and “conspiracy to commit fraud” claims she was asserting.

68. On August 28, 2006, Susan Harris, through D. Todd Riddles, also filed a Cross-Claim against Glenn Harris alleging that he (Glenn Harris) had tricked her into believing she was a party to an “oral purchase contract” to buy the 3325 Oak Hollow Road residence and that he (Glenn Harris) had conspired with his parents to “lure” her from the Silverleaf residence to the 3325 Oak Hollow Road residence under the “pretense” Norma and Bud Harris would sell the home to Susan Harris (along with Glenn Harris), and that Glenn Harris testified in his deposition — taken by D. Todd Riddles — that he (Glenn Harris) testified “there was never any agreement for [him and Susan Harris] to purchase the Oak Hollow property.”

69. Susan Harris testified in her own deposition that she “never was present in a conversation with Bud, Norma, Glenn and myself [Susan Harris] regarding purchasing the Oak Hollow property or an agreement to purchase the Oak Hollow property ... Bud and Norma and I never discussed a contract.” She also testified that a written contract was not required for a “family member” transaction: “Q. So is it your understanding that you don’t need written contracts for family land transactions? A. It would — I’m just making a generalized statement that I think it’s different when you’re buying something from a family member than from somebody you don’t know.”

70. Susan Harris knew that Bud and Norma Harris had borrowed substantial sums of money to acquire and remodel the 3325 Oak Hollow Road residence, and that they would be forced to continue to service this debt so long as they could not sell the 3325 Oak Hollow Road residence because of Susan Harris’s lawsuit.

71. On September 5,2006, the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court ruling in favor of Norma and Bud Harris in the Moorad litigation. Moorad petitioned the Oklahoma Supreme Court for a Writ of Certiorari.

72. Despite the ridiculous nature of Susan Harris’s lawsuit against Norma and Bud Harris, she and D. Todd Riddles continued to prosecute it and their prosecution was malicious.

73. Susan Harris and D. Todd Riddles refused to reduce their Witness List to less than thirty-two witnesses. By so refusing, numerous depositions that otherwise would not have been required to be taken were taken.

74. On January 16, 2007, the Oklahoma Supreme Court denied the Moorad Petition for Certiorari and on January 29, 2007, the Mandate was issued. The Mandate was spread of record on February 2, 2007.

75. On February 21, 2007, Norma and Bud Harris moved for Summary Judgment against Susan Harris.

76. On February 21,2007, Glenn Harris moved for Summary Judgment against Susan Harris.

77. On April 6, 2007, Summary Judgment was granted against Susan Harris in favor of Norma and Bud Harris on all claims. Susan Harris was ordered to vacate the 3325 Oak Hollow Road residence, or, alternatively, to post a one-hundred thousand dollar Supersedeas Bond.

78. On April 6, 2007, Summary Judgment was granted against Susan Harris in favor of Glenn Harris on all claims.

79. On or about April 10, 2007, Susan Harris, through D. Todd Riddles, offered to “settle” the case on a “walk-away basis” if Norma and Bud Harris would release their rights to pursue malicious prosecution andlor abuse of process claims against Susan Harris.

80. Susan Harris vacated the 3325 Oak Hollow Road residence on April 10, 2007, after an Execution and Writ of Assistance was directed to the Sheriff of Oklahoma County to forcibly remove her if necessary

81. A Judgment against Susan Harris was entered in favor of Norma and Bud Harris on April 23, 2007.

82. On April 24, 2007, a Judgment was entered in favor of Glenn Harris against Susan Harris.

83. On May 23, 2007, D. Todd Riddles, on behalf of Susan Harris, appealed the Judgments entered against Susan Harris in favor of Norma and Bud Harris and in favor of Glenn Harris.

84. On June 22,2007, D. Todd Riddles, on behalf of Susan Harris, filed a “Lis Pendes (sic) Notice” with the Oklahoma County Clerk which was recorded at Book 10522, Pages 428-30. It was the intent of D. Todd Riddles and Susan Harris to cloud title to the 3325 Oak Hollow Road residence owned by Norma and Bud Harris. It also was the intent of D. Todd Riddles and Susan Marks Harris to impair the marketability of the 3325 Oak Hollow Road residence under the Oklahoma Marketable Title.

85. On July 30, 2007, a Judgment Taxing Costs in the amount of $9,160.08 was entered in favor of Glenn Harris against Susan Harris.

86. On August 2, 2007, a Judgment for Costs and Attorney Fees, in the amount of $10,601.60 for costs and $87,622.00 for attorney fees, was entered in favor of Norma and Bud Harris against Susan Han-is.

87. On August 29, 2007, D. Todd Riddles, on behalf of Susan Harris, appealed the July30 and August 2, 2007, Judgments entered against Susan Harris in favor of Norma and Bud Harris and in favor of Glenn Harris. 88. On April 29, 2008, all rulings against Susan Harris were affirmed by the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals with one exception — the District Court was instructed to allocate attorney fees between those attributable to the FED issues and those attributable to the ejectment portion of the case.

89. The mandate issued on May 22, 2008, and was spread of record on May 28, 2008.

90. On July 16, 2008, Susan Harris confessed judgment in favor of Norma and Bud Harris as evidenced by the Confessed Judgment filed in the District Court file that same day. In the Confessed Judgment, Judgment is entered against her in the amount of $65,000.00 for rents attributable to the thirteen months Susan Harris unlawflilly remained in possession of the 3325 Oak Hollow Road residence, and $52,573.20 for attorney fees attributable to the FED action.

91. The Confessed Judgment entered by the District Court on July 16, 2008, became a final and non-appealable judgment on or about August 18, 2008, because it was not appealed by Susan Harris on or before August 15, 2008.

92. The Notice of Lis Pendens, despite written demand served on D. Todd Riddles, has not been released by Susan Harris and!or D. Todd Riddles.

93. The fair market value of the 3325 Oak Hollow Road residence has declined while Susan Harris has clouded and continues to cloud its title.

94. Norma and Bud Harris incurred legal expenses including attorney fees and litigation costs in an amount in excess of one-hundred thousand dollars defending themselves against the breach of contract and conspiracy to defraud claims pursued by Susan Harris.

COUNT I

MALICIOUS PROSECUTION

95. Paragraphs 1 through 94 are incorporated here by reference.

96. Susan Harris, D. Todd Riddles, and Cheek, Cheek & Cheek (also known as “The Cheek Law Firm”) commenced and prosecuted a civil action against Norma and Bud Hanis.

97. D. Todd Riddles and Cheek, Cheek & Cheek (also known as “The Cheek Law Firm”) aided and abetted Susan Harris in the commencement and prosecution against Norma and Bud Harris.

98. Susan Harris and D. Todd Riddles did not believe and could not reasonably have believed that the lawsuit they pursued and continued to pursue against Norma and Bud Harris had merit.

99. The civil action Susan Harris, D. Todd Riddles, and Cheek, Cheek & Cheek (also known as “The Cheek Law Firm”) commenced against Norma and Bud Harris was terminated successfully in favor of Norma and Bud Harris.

100. There was a want of probable cause for Susan Harris, D. Todd Riddles, and Check, Cheek & Cheek (also known as “The Cheek Law Firm”) to commence a civil action against Norma and Bud Harris because the facts and circumstances known to Defendants Susan Harris, D. Todd Riddles, and Cheek, Cheek & Cheek (also known as “The Cheek Law Firm”) were such that no reasonable persons or persons of prudence and caution would believe the action they commenced and prosecuted against Norma and Bud Harris was justified.

101. The bringing and prosecution of the civil action commenced against Norma and Bud Harris by Defendants Susan Harris, D. Todd Riddles, and Cheek, Cheek & Cheek (also known as “The Cheek Law Firm”) was malicious.

102. The bringing and prosecution of the civil action commenced against Norma and Bud Harris by Defendants Susan Harris, D. Todd Riddles, and Cheek, Cheek & Cheek (also known as “The Cheek Law Firm”) was done with ill will.

103. The bringing and prosecution of the civil action commenced against Norma and Bud Harris by Defendants Susan Harris, D. Todd Riddles, and Cheek, Cheek & Cheek (also known as “The Cheek Law Firm”) and the filing of the Notice of Lis Pendens have precluded the sale of the 3325 Oak Hollow Road residence while the fair market value of the residence has declined.

104. The bringing and prosecution of the civil action commenced against Norma and Bud Harris by Defendants Susan Harris, D. Todd Riddles, and Cheek, Cheek & Cheek (also known as “The Cheek Law Firm”) and the filing of the Notice of Lis Pendens have deprived Norma and Bud Harris of profits the otherwise would have realized from the sale of the 3325 Oak Hollow Road residence.

105. Because of the bringing and prosecution of the civil action commenced against Norma and Bud Harris by Defendants Susan Harris, D. Todd Riddles, and Cheek, Cheek & Cheek (also known as “The Cheek Law Firm”) and the filing of the Notice of Lis Pendens, Norma and Bud Harris have incurred significant interest and other expenses of owning the 3325 Oak Hollow Road residence which otherwise would not have been incurred if the property had been marketable for purposes of the Oklahoma Marketable Title Standards.

106. As a result of the bringing and prosecution of the civil action commenced against Norma and Bud Harris by Defendants Susan Harris, D. Todd Riddles, and Cheek, Cheek & Cheek (also known as “The Cheek Law Firm”), Norma and Bud Harris have sustained injury and they are entitled to recover damages from the Defendants in amounts that will fairly and justly compensate them for the malicious prosecution.

107. The Defendants are liable jointly and severally.

108. Malicious prosecution is an intentional tort and not dischargeable in bankruptcy.

COUNT TWO

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

109. Paragraphs 1 through 108 are incorporated here by reference.

110. The actions by Defendants Susan Harris, D. Todd Riddles, and Cheek, Cheek & Cheek (also known as “The Cheek Law Firm”) in the setting in which they occurred were so extreme and outrageous as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and would be considered atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized society.

111. Defendants Susan Harris, D. Todd Riddles, and Cheek, Cheek & Cheek (also known as “The Cheek Law Firm”) intentionally and recklessly caused severe emotional distress to Norma and Bud Han-is beyond that which a reasonable person could be expected to endure.

112. Because of the extreme and outrageous acts committed by Defendants Susan Harris, D. Todd Riddles, and Cheek, Cheek & Cheek (also known as “The Cheek Law Firm”), Norma and Bud Harris are entitled to be compensated for all injuries caused by the emotional distress.

113. The Defendants are liable jointly and severally.

114. Intentional infliction of emotional distress is an intentional tort and not dischargeable in bankruptcy.

COUNT III

PUNITIVE DAMAGES

115. Paragraphs 1 through 114 are incorporated here by reference.

116. Defendants Susan Harris, D. Todd Riddles, and Cheek, Cheek & Cheek (also known as “The Cheek Law Firm”) acted in reckless disregard of the rights of Norma and Bud Harris.

117. Defendants Susan Harris, D. Todd Riddles, and Cheek, Cheek & Cheek (also known as “The Cheek Law Firm”) acted intentionally and with malice towards Norma and Bud Harris.

118. Because of the extreme and outrageous acts committed by Defendants Susan Harris, D. Todd Riddles, and Cheek, Cheek & Cheek (also known as “The Cheek Law Firm”), Norma and Bud Harris are entitled to an award of punitive damages against each of the Defendants in amounts that are not less than five-hundred thousand dollars each.

DEMAND/PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiffs Norma J. Harris and Glenn E. Harris demand the relief requested hereinabove and pray that Judgments be rendered and entered against each of the Defendants, jointly and severally, together with costs of this action and such other relief to which the Plaintiffs may be entitled.

Defendant D. Todd Riddles appeared and answered as follows:

1. The allegations in Paragraph 1 are admitted.

2. The allegations in Paragraph 2 are admitted.

3. The allegations in Paragraph 3 are admitted.

4. The allegations in Paragraph 4 are admitted.

5. It is admitted that this Court has jurisdiction ofthe subject matter involved and of these Defendants.

6. It is admitted that venue is proper in the District Court of Oklahoma County,
Oklahoma.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

7. The allegations in Paragraph 7 are admitted.

8. The allegations in Paragraph 8 are admitted.

9. The allegations in Paragraph 9 are admitted.

10. The allegations in Paragraph 10 are admitted based upon information and belief.

11. The allegations in Paragraph 11 are admitted.

12. The allegations in Paragraph 12 are admitted.

13. This Defendant does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 13 and they are thus denied.

14. This Defendant does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 14 and they are
thus denied.

15. The allegations in Paragraph 15 are admitted.

16. This Defendant does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 16 and they are thus denied.

17. The allegations in Paragraph 17 are admitted.

18. This Defendant does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 18 and they are thus denied.

19. The allegations in Paragraph 19 are admitted.

20. The allegations in Paragraph 20 are admitted but this Defendant was told by their client that in addition to “moving in” to the Oak Hollow residence they would be buying that property pending the finalization of the Moorad litigation.

21. This Defendant does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 21 and they are thus denied. Notwithstanding what Norma and Bud Han is may have said to Glenn Harris, Susan Harris was told by Glenn Harris that they would be purchasing the Oak Hollow Road residence. Susan Han is even went so far as to contact a friend on the judiciary to solicit advice as to whether she should enter into any agreement to purchase the house given the Moorad litigation, and was advised that the Moorad litigation should not be an impediment to her entering into an agreement to buy the Oak Hollow Road residence.

22. It is admitted that Glenn and Susan Harris had children and moved from Silverleaf to Oak Hollow. This Defendant does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 22, but Glenn Harris did advise Susan Harris that they were purchasing the Oak Hollow Road property, and in reliance upon that representation, committed substantial ffinds for remodeling.

23. This Defendant does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 23 and they are thus denied.

24. The allegations in Paragraph 24 are admitted.

25. The allegations in Paragraph 25 are denied.

26. The allegations in Paragraph 26 are admitted.

27. This Defendant does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 27 and they are thus denied.

28. This Defendant does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 28 and they are thus denied.

29. This Defendant does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 29 and they are thus denied.

30. The allegations in Paragraph 30 are admitted.

31. The allegations in Paragraph 3 1 are admitted.

32. The allegations in Paragraph 32 are admitted.

33. The allegations in Paragraph 33 are admitted.

34. The allegations in Paragraph 34 are admitted.

35. The allegations in Paragraph 35 are admitted based upon information and belief.

36. The allegations in Paragraph 36 are admitted based upon information and belief

37. The allegations in Paragraph 37 are admitted insofar as they are consistent with the note in question, and denied insofar as they are inconsistent with the note in question.

38. The allegations in Paragraph 38 are admitted insofar as they are consistent with the contents of the e-mail in question, and denied insofar as they are inconsistent with the
contents of the e-mail in question. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 38 are denied.

39. The allegations in Paragraph 39 are admitted insofar as they are consistent with the contents of the e-mail in question, and denied insofar as they are inconsistent with the contents of the e-mail in question. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 39 are denied.

40. The allegations in Paragraph 40 are admitted insofar as they are consistent with the contents of the e-mail in question, and denied insofar as they are inconsistent with the contents of the e-mail in question. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 40 are denied.

41. The allegations in Paragraph 41 are admitted insofar as they are consistent with the contents of the e-mail in question, and denied insofar as they are inconsistent with the contents of the e-mail in question. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 41 are denied.

42. This Defendant does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 42 and they are thus denied.

43. The allegations in Paragraph 43 are admitted insofar as they are consistent with the contents of the e-mail in question, and denied insofar as they are inconsistent with the contents of the e-mail in question. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 43 are denied.

44. The allegations in Paragraph 44 are admitted insofar as they are consistent with the contents of the letter in question, and denied insofar as they are inconsistent with the contents of the letter in question. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 44 are denied.

45. The allegations in Paragraph 45 are admitted insofar as they are consistent with the contents of the e-mail in question, and denied insofar as they are inconsistent with the contents of the e-mail in question. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 45 are denied.

46. The first allegation in Paragraph 46 is admitted. This Defendant does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegation in Paragraph 46 and it is thus denied.

47. The allegations in Paragraph 47 are admitted insofar as they are consistent with the Answer and Counterclaim to the FED, and denied insofar as they are inconsistent with the Answer and Counterclaim to the FED.

48. The allegations in Paragraph 48 are admitted insofar as they are consistent with what is set forth in the Answer and Counterclaim, and denied insofar as they are inconsistent with what is set forth in the Answer and Counterclaim.

49. The allegations in Paragraph 49 are denied.

50. The first allegation in Paragraph 50 is admitted. The remaining allegation in

50 is admitted insofar as it is consistent with the contents of the journal notation, and denied insofar as it is inconsistent with the contents of the journal notation.

51. The allegations in Paragraph 51 are admitted insofar as they are consistent with the letter in question, and denied insofar as they are inconsistent with the letter in question.

52. The allegations in Paragraph 52 are admitted insofar as they are consistent with the contents of the e-mail in question, and denied insofar as they are inconsistent with the contents of the e-mail in question. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 52 are denied.

53. The allegation in Paragraph 53 is admitted.

54. The allegations in Paragraph 54 are admitted insofar as they are consistentwith the contents of the e-mail in question, and denied insofar as they are inconsistent with the contents of the e-mail in question. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 54 are denied.

55. The allegations in Paragraph 55 are admitted insofar as they are consistent with the contents of the e-mail in question, and denied insofar as they are inconsistent with the contents of the e-mail in question. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 55 are denied.

56. The allegations in Paragraph 56 are admitted insofar as they are consistent with the contents of the e-mail in question, and denied insofar as they are inconsistent with the contents of the e-mail in question. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 56 are denied.

57. The allegations in Paragraph 57 are admitted insofar as they are consistent with the contents of the e-mail in question, and denied insofar as they are inconsistent with the contents of the e-mail in question. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 57 are denied.

58. The allegation in Paragraph 58 is admitted.

59. The allegations in Paragraph 59 are denied.

60. The allegations in Paragraph 60 are admitted.

61. The allegations in Paragraph 61 are admitted.

62. The allegations in Paragraph 62 are admitted insofar as they are consistent with the contents of the letter in question, and denied insofar as they are inconsistent with the contents of the letter in question. The remaining
allegations in Paragraph 62 are denied.

63. The allegations in Paragraph 63 are admitted insofar as they are consistent with the Amended Counterclaim, and denied insofar as they are inconsistent with the Amended Counterclaim. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 63 are denied.

64. The allegations in Paragraph 64 are admitted insofar as they are consistent with the Amended Counterclaim, and denied insofar as they are inconsistent with the Amended Counterclaim. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 65 are denied.

65. The allegations in Paragraph 65 are admitted insofar as they are consistent with the Amended Counterclaim, and denied insofar as they are inconsistent with the Amended Counterclaim. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 65 are denied.

66. The allegations in Paragraph 66 are admitted insofar as they are consistent with the filing in question, and denied insofar as they are inconsistent with the contents of the filing in question. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 66 are denied.

67. The allegations in Paragraph 67 are admitted insofar as they are consistent with the Amended Counterclaim, and denied insofar as they are inconsistent with the Amended Counterclaim. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 67 are denied.

68. The allegations in Paragraph 68 are admitted insofar as they are consistent with the Cross-Claim, and denied insofar as they are inconsistent with the Cross-Claim. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 68 are denied.

69. The allegations in Paragraph 69 are admitted insofar as they are consistent with Susan Han is’ deposition testimony, and denied insofar as they are inconsistent with her
deposition testimony. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 69 are denied.

70.
The
allegations
in Paragraph 70
are denied.

71.
The
allegations
in Paragraph 71
are admitted.

72.
The
allegations
in Paragraph 72
are denied.

73.
The
allegations
in Paragraph 73
are denied.

74.
The
allegations
in Paragraph 54
are admitted.

75.
The
allegations
in Paragraph 75
are admitted.

76.
The
allegations
in Paragraph 76
are admitted.

77.
The
allegations
in Paragraph 77
are admitted.

78.
The
allegations
in Paragraph 78
are admitted.

79.
This Defendant does not have sufficient
information to admit or deny the
allegations
in Paragraph 79 and they are thus denied.

80.
The allegations in Paragraph 80 are admitted.

81.
The allegations in Paragraph 81 are admitted.

82.
The allegations in Paragraph 82 are admitted.

83.
The allegations in Paragraph 83 are admitted.

84.
The first allegation in Paragraph 84 is admitted.
The remaining allegations in
Paragraph

84 are denied.

85.
The allegations in Paragraph 85 are admitted.

86.

The allegations in Paragraph 86 are admitted.

87.
The allegations in Paragraph 87 are admitted.

88. The allegations in Paragraph 88 are admitted.

89. The allegations in Paragraph 89 are admitted.

90. The allegations in Paragraph 90 are admitted insofar as they are consistent with the confessed judgment, and denied insofar as they are inconsistent with the confessed judgment. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 69 are denied.

91. Paragraph 91 is a statement of law and does not require a response.

92. The allegations in Paragraph 92 are admitted.

93. The allegations in Paragraph 93 are denied.

94. The allegations in Paragraph 94 are denied.

COUNT I

MALICIOUS PROSECUTION

95. Paragraph 95 does not require a response.

96. The allegations in Paragraph 96 are denied, save and except to admit that a civil action was commenced and prosecuted by Susan Harris; in which action she was represented by D. Todd Riddles and Cheek, Cheek & Cheek.

97. The allegations in Paragraph 97 are denied, save and except to admit that D. Todd Riddles and Cheek, Cheek & Cheek did represent Susan Harr is in a civil action by Susan Harr is against Norma and Bud Ha is.

98. The allegations in Paragraph 98 are denied.

99. The allegations in Paragraph 99 are admitted.

100.

101.

102.

103.

104.

105.

106.

107.

108.

109.

110.

111.

112.

113.

114.

100 are denied.

101 are denied.

102 are denied.

103 are denied.

104 are denied.

105 are denied.

106 are denied.

of law and does

of law and does

not require a response. not require a response.

The allegations in Paragraph

The allegations in Paragraph

The allegations in Paragraph

The allegations in Paragraph

The allegations in Paragraph

The allegations in Paragraph

The allegations in Paragraph

Paragraph 107 is a statement

Paragraph 108 is a statement

COUNT TWO

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

Paragraph 109 does not require a response.

The allegations in Paragraph 110 are denied.

The allegations in Paragraph 111 are denied.

The allegations in Paragraph 112 are denied.

The allegations in Paragraph 113 are denied.

Paragraph 114 is a statement of law and not an allegation, and does not require

a response.

COUNT III

PUNITIVE DAMAGES

115. Paragraph 115 does not require a response.

116. The allegations in Paragraph 116 are denied.

117. The allegations in Paragraph 117 are denied.

118. The allegations in Paragraph 118 are denied.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. D. Todd Riddles, of Cheek, Cheek and Cheek, had a probable cause to assert the claims against Norma and Bud Harris
that were asserted on behalf of Susan Harris in the underlying litigation in question.

2. D. Todd Riddles, of Cheek, Cheek and Cheek, had a right to rely upon the statements of his client and others who
testified that Glenn Harris had made representations that he and his wife would be purchasing the Oak Hollow property from his parents. It was reasonable for D. Todd Riddles to rely on the testimony of his client and others.

3. D. Todd Riddles, of Cheek, Cheek and Cheek, denies that any act of his was intentional, malicious, motivated by ill will, or taken in disregard of the rights of the Plaintiffs herein.

4. The Oklahoma Punitive Damage scheme is unconstitutional.

WHEREFORE, having answered, Defendant, D. Todd Riddles, prays that all claims against him be denied and that he be dismissed from this action, that he be awarded his costs to include reasonable attorneys’ fees, and for such flirther relief as the Court deems he is entitled.

Outcome: Settled during trial and dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



 
 
Home | Add Attorney | Add Expert | Add Court Reporter | Sign In
Find-A-Lawyer By City | Find-A-Lawyer By State and City | Articles | Recent Lawyer Listings
Verdict Corrections | Link Errors | Advertising | Editor | Privacy Statement
© 1996-2018 MoreLaw, Inc. - All rights reserved.