Date: 10-14-2013

Case Style: Jennifer Capron v. Bill Pittman dba Precision Contracting and Roofing

Case Number: CJ-2011-3703

Judge: Dana Kuehn

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Stephen Capron, Jr.

Defendant's Attorney:

Description: Jennifer Capron sued Bill Pittman dba Precision Contracting and Roofing, Casey Pittman dba Precision Contracting and Roofing, John Phillip Strawn aka Fran Tanner, Victor Guzman, Victor Sanchez and Allison Pittman d/b/a Precision Contracting and Roofing on breach of contract theories. 1. Plaintiff is an individual residing in Tulsa County, and is the owner of the property on which the roofing contract at issue was to be performed.

2. Bill Pittman, Allison Pittman and Casey Pittman are individuals residiiTul County who contracted under the name Precision Contracting and Roofing to repThce aff’ entire roof for Plaintiff. See Attached Contract.

3. John Phillip Strawn is the real name of the individual who posed as Frank Tanner. Strawn/Tanner is an individual residing in Tulsa County who acted as the foreman for the Pittmans charged with the specific duty of overseeing the project at issue in this case.

4. Victor Guzman is an agent of Pittmans who was to perform certain work on roof at issue, and who represented that certain insurance was available in the event any problem with the work performed arose.

5, Victor Sanchez is an agent of Pittmans who was to perform certain work on the roof at issue, and who represented that certain insurance was available in the event that any problem with the work performed arose.

6. The contract at issue was negotiated and executed in Tulsa County and was to be hilly performed in Tulsa County, and the various representations making up the fraud at issue were made in Tulsa County.

7. Venue and jurisdiction are proper in this Court, and only in this Court.

8. Notice of the actual damages is provided to both satisfS’ the pleading requirement, as well as to advise any defaulting party of the amounts which a default judgment will be sought. The actual damages sought for the reasonable value of a replacement roof $10,900.00.

9. In addition to these damages, Plaintiff seeks attorneys’ fees, costs, interest and any other damages available at law or in equity.

II. Specific Counts

10. The contract was not performed. Specifically, rather than replace the roof, Defendants patched very limited portions of the roof. Defendants did not replace the felt, did not remove 37 square feet of roofing material, did not purchase or install 41 square feet of 30 year IKO Weatherwood Shingles, and did not purchase or install turtle vents and pipe jacks.

11. Pittman is liable for breach of contract and breach of warranty for the actual damages at issue above.

12. Additionally, all defendants engaged in fraud and consumer fraud in violation of the Okiahoma Consumer Protection Act. The various acts of fraud include the following:

a. Misrepresenting their intention to install a new roof;

b. Misrepresenting that they had, in fact, installed a new roof;

c. Misrepresenting that the Pittmans had an actual limited liability company;

d. Misrepresenting that the Pittmans had not engaged in other fraud, and that they were in good standing with various consumer protection entities;

e. Misrepresenting that the Pittmans were fully insured;

f. Failure to disclose that the work contract for was not performed;

g. Taking full payment for the contract (after demanding the same), knowing that the contract was not performed.

13. While other acts of fraud and concealment occurred, these categories detail the primary bases for the claims.

14. The Defendants’ intent in engaging in this fraud was to cause Plaintiff to rely upon the misrepresentations and concealment of material information to her detriment. Plaintiff did so rely on Defendants and has been damaged thereby.

15. For their fraud, deceit and vio’ations of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act, Defendants are liable for actual damages, punitive damages and statutory damages for each violation of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act.

16. In addition to the fraud detailed above, the Pittmans are liable under the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act for his efforts to conceal their bad acts following the discovery by Plaintiff.

17. Though the Pittmans represent themselves to be upstanding members of the business community, they have a history of fraud, foreclosure, liens, and law suits which they actively conceal from potential customers. On information and belief, this fraudulent activity is currently being continued in Joplin, Missouri and Overland Park, Kansas, where the Pittmans are operating in the wake of catastrophic storms and taking advantage of those desperate for assistance.

18. Plaintiff seeks the amount of $20,000.00 jointly against all defendants for actual damages, including for her distress, inconvenience, and anguish, and the amount of $32,700.00 for punitive damages, which number is calculated to be three times the amount that an ordinary person contracting for a new roof on a house the size of Plaintiffs would incur.

III. Conclusion and Prayer for Relief

Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for a judgment for breach of contract against the three Pittman defendants in the amount of $10,900 plus all costs, fees and interest available. Additionally, Plaintiff prays for a judgment in the amount of $20,000 for fraud, deceit and violations of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act against all defendants, and a judgment in the amount of $32,700 for punitive damages, as well as for all costs, fees and interest available under Oklahoma law.

Outcome: Motion for Default Judgment against Bill Pittman. Dismissed without prejudice as to Allison Pittman and Casey Pittman. JOHN STRAWN (A/K/A FRANK TANNER), VICTOR GUZMAN & VICTOR SANCHES ARE DISMISSED

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: