Date: 01-31-2013

Case Style: Christopher James v. Thomas Craig Scheer

Case Number: CJ-2011-2784

Judge: Lisa T. Davis

Court: District Court, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: J. Blake Patton and Anderw Lee Walding

Defendant's Attorney: Curtis J. Thomas for Thomas Craig Scheer

Robert C. Thompson for Tony Leonard and James Leonard

Description: Christopher James sued Thomas Craig Scheer and James Leonard and Toni Leonard d/b/a The Hudson Company Auto Brokers on personal tort theories claiming:

1. This case stems from the theft of a 2004 model Dodge pickup truck from Plaintiff during December 2009; the procurement of false Certificates of Title to the stolen vehicle based on fraudulent Affidavits submitted to the Oklahoma Tax Commission; purchase of the vehicle by Defendant Thomas Craig Scheer and its subsequent impoundment by the City of Oklahoma City Police based on Plaintiff’s Dec. 15, 2009, report that the vehicle had been stolen; the recovery of the vehicle by Defendant Scheer based on an Order of the Court that later was vacated because he procured it without giving notice to Plaintiff; Defendant Scheer’s later sale of the vehicle to Defendants James and Toni Leonard doing business as “The Hudson Company Auto Brokers” when Scheer realized Plaintiff had learned of Scheer’s unlawful procurement of the Order; and the refusal by Defendants James and Toni Leonard to return to the vehicle to its lawful owner, the Plaintiff.

THE PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE

2. Plaintiff Christopher Lee James (“Plaintiff’ or “Chris James”) is a resident and domiciliary of Oklahoma County.

3. Defendant Thomas Craig Scheer (“Scheer”) simultaneously resides in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, and in Grayson County, Texas. Locally, service of process on Scheer may be made on him at his residence at 4703 N.W. 72” Street in Oklahoma City. In Texas, service of process may be made on Scheer at his residence at 269 Richerson Road, Denison, Texas.

4. Defendants James Leonard and Toni Leonard (“Leonards”), doing business as “The Hudson Company Auto Brokers,” are residents and domiciliaries of Oklahoma County. Service of process on them may be had at their combination residence and place of business in the Quail Creek neighborhood at 3102 Rock Ridge Place in Oklahoma City.

5. Personal jurisdiction over the Defendants is present and this Court has subject matter jurisdiction to render the relief requested by Plaintiff against the Defendants.

6. One or more of the Defendants resided in Oklahoma County at the time the claims against them arose, and they may be summoned here. Thus, venue is laid properly in this Court,

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AGAINST SCHEER

7. On Jan. 21, 2009, Karen Cook conveyed her title to a 2004 model Dodge pickup, Vehicle Identification Number 1D7HA18DX4S774561, to her son, Chris James. At that time, Title Number 557904233092B was assigned to the Certificate of Title received by Chris James. Upon transfer, the truck odometer registered 90,000 miles.

8. On Dec. 15, 2009, the 2004 model Dodge pickup was stolen from the driveway of the residence of Chris James. He learned of the vehicle’s disappearance when his friend inquired why the truck was not in the driveway that day. Chris James promptly reported the theft to the City of Oklahoma City Police Department (“OKCPD”). According to the “Citizen’s Assistance Form” Chris James received from the OKCPD, the report was made to Officer Skopak who was working the second shift at the Hefner Division of the OKCPD. For administrative purposes, the matter internally was assigned Case No. 09-106773 by the OKCPD.

9. On Dec. 21, 2009, in an Affidavit for Transfer of Ownership Following Loss of Assigned Oklahoma Title (“Affidavit”) signed by an Alfredo Casillas (“Casillas”), notarized by Dalila Gandarilla (“Gandarilla”), Casillas falsely stated that on Dec. 6, 2009, Chris James sold to him the 2004 model Dodge truck for five-thousand dollars ($5,000); and that Casillas had “lost” the Oklahoma Certificate of Title allegedly provided to him by Chris James. Casillas’s Affidavit is a public record on file at the Oklahoma Tax Commission (“OTC”). The Affidavit completed by Casillas is a form document (“Form 777”) issued by the Motor Vehicle Division of the OTC.

10. In addition to notarizing the Casillas Affidavit on Dec. 21, 2009, Gandarilla also alleges to have notarized a Bill of Sale from Chris James to Casillas dated Dec. 10, 2009. The signature of Chris James to the Bill of Sale is a forgery. Like the Casillas Affidavit, the Bill of Sale also is a public record on file at the OTC.

11. According to another OTC form entitled “Odometer Disclosure Statement,” dated Dec. 21, 2009, Casillas as “Transferor” transferred the 2004 model Dodge pickup from himself to Sandra Casillas as “Transferee,” at which time the odometer read 93,160 miles. This form document (“Form 729”) also is a public record on file at the OTC.

12. On April 10, 2011, Gandarilla again notarized a document pertaining to the 2004 model Dodge pickup. Specifically, she notarized another Affidavit for Transfer of Ownership Following Loss of Assigned Oklahoma Title. This one states it was signed by Katia S. Sevilla (“Sevilla”) who claims therein she bought the vehicle from Casillas on Mar. 27, 2010, for one- hundred dollars ($100.00). Just like Casillas, Sevilla swore she “lost” the Oklahoma Certificate of Title she was provided earlier by Casillas. The Sevilla Affidavit is a public record at the OTC.

13. On June 21, 2010, according to the reverse side of an Oklahoma Certificate of Title relating to the 2004 model Dodge pickup issued to Sevilla on the strength of the Sevilla Affidavit, Sevilla warranted to Defendant Scheer that she owned the vehicle. In doing so, she sold and assigned the vehicle to Scheer for seventy-five hundred dollars ($7,500.00). By now, the odometer reading was 99,000 miles.

14. The OKCPD Crime Report in Case No, 09-106773 states that on July 21, 2010, OKCPD Detective Scott Wilson (“Detective Wilson”) and Detective Wagoner drove to Scheer’s Oklahoma City residence. When no one answered the door, Detective Wilson left a contact card for Scheer requesting for Scheer to contact him. Scheer, upon information and belief, failed to respond to Detective Wilson’s request.

15. On Aug. 17, 2010, Detective Wilson was contacted by OKCPD police officers who informed him they had recovered the 2004 model Dodge pickup and were holding Scheer in custody, Detective Wilson told the officers to “place a hold on the vehicle” and to release Scheer noting that “this truck has been registered by the Tax Commission by three difference [sic] subjects since it had been reported stolen on 12-15-10 [sic] by [victim], Chris James.”

16. The Crime Report narrative by one of the officers who recovered the vehicle states it was impounded on Aug. 18, 2010. According to the narrative, by OKCPD Sergeant Kuhn, Defendant Scheer was “handcuffed” and “placed in the back seat of the RAAID Unit.”

17. On Aug. 19, 2010, Scheer advised Detective Wilson he paid eighty-one hundred dollars ($8,100.00) cash for the vehicle to Ricky Sevilla and his wife, Katia Sevilla. That same day, Ricky Sevilla advised Detective Wilson he had acquired the 2004 model Dodge truck from “Ivan Locano,” a Mexican male, for four-hundred dollars ($400.00) plus a Chevy Silverado, and that “Ivan had a title” to the truck. Detective Wilson contacted and was told by Ivan Locano that “he got the Dodge from Alfredo Castillas [sic] who also uses the name Aifredo Contreas,” and
that “Alfredo had a title and he [Ivan Locano] didn’t know the pick-up was stolen.”

18. On Aug. 26, 2010, Detective Wilson was advised the District Attorney declined to press charges against “Alfredo Contreras.” Detective Wilson then determined the vehicle, which was held in custody for the OKCPD by Arrow Wrecking, should be sent to “property disposition court” for return to its lawful owner.

19. At no time did Defendant Seheer attempt to enforce the warranty of title made to him by or otherwise bring an action against Katia Sevilla. Instead, Scheer commenced a case in the “property disposition court” on Aug. 30, 2010, by filing an Application in the District Court of Oklahoma County. The case, styled In re Application of Thomas Craig Scheer for the Return of Allegedly Stolen or Embezzled Property, Case No. CP-2010-22, was brought under 22 OKLA. STAT. § 1321, and in his Application, Scheer swore under oath that he knew of no other person who claimed a legal interest in the truck.

20. On Aug. 30, 2010, Scheer also filed a Notice of Hearing on Application for the Return of Allegedly Stolen or Embezzled Property (“Notice of Hearing”). In it, he stated a
hearing would occur on Sept. 24, 2010, at which Scheer would be determined to be the owner of the 2004 model Dodge pickup if his Application was not contested.

21. On Aug. 30, 2010, Defendant Scheer knew because the truck had been reported by Plaintiff as stolen, that ownership of the vehicle was disputed by multiple persons claiming a legal interest in the 2004 model Dodge pickup including Plaintiff

22. Scheer, in deliberate violation of 22 OKLA. STAT. § 1321, maliciously failed to send to or serve a copy of the Notice of Hearing on Plaintiff, an “interested person,”“claimant,” and only lawful owner of the vehicle.

23. On Sept. 24, 2010, Scheer appeared at the hearing for which no Notice of Hearing was given and procured the entry of an Order in Case No. CP-2010-22 proclaiming him to be the “rightful owner” of the truck that had been stolen from Plaintiff

24. Scheer obtained this Order knowing there were one or more “fake” titles in the chain of ownership as evidenced by an email sent by Scheer to Defendant James Leonard on Feb. 26, 2011:

Jim,

This is what I received from the City of OKC that made me realize that Chris James was pursuing the truck. Again, I never mentioned your name or address to anyone and can only assume the tag agency was how they reached you.
Let’s see what the lawyers have to say, but I want to talk to the detective who was investigating, Scott Wilson. He was suspicious of several prior owners and we need to see where the fake title originated. The tag agencies should be able to provide that info, but we may have to get Scott or someone from Judge Croy’s office to make that happen. Like you, I improved the truck with new windshield, new rotors, new brakes, new tires, etc.
Congrats to your game winning son!

Tom

25. Scheer’s reference to something received from the City of Oklahoma City is to a separate proceeding that was initiated by Plaintiff on Jan. 26, 2011, when he filed an Application for the return of his truck. That case was styled In re Application of Chris James for the Return of Allegedly Stolen or Embezzled Property, Case No. CP-201 1-02. Plaintiff also filed a Notice of Hearing that day which was served via certified mail, return receipt requested, on the City of Oklahoma City, the OKCPD, and Defendant Scheer.

26. The Notice of Hearing to Scheer was mailed to him at his Oklahoma City address on Feb. 8, 2011. Later, on Feb. 15, 2011, Scheer refused service as evidenced by notations made by the United States Postal Service to the outside of the envelope, addressed to Scheer at his Oklahoma City address, containing the Notice of Hearing.

27. On Feb. 15, 2011, the day Defendant Scheer refused to accept delivery of the Notice of Hearing mailing, Scheer sold the 2004 model Dodge truck for seventy-five hundred dollars ($7,500.00) to the Leonards doing business as “The Hudson Company Auto Brokers.” The $7,500 was paid to Scheer via their delivery of a check, Check No. 1131, that was payable to the order of “Tom Scheer,” and Scheer cashed the check that day. Scheer warranted title to the vehicle to the Leonards. The odometer reading on Feb. 15, 2011, was 121,850 miles.

28. On Feb. 18, 2011, the City of Oklahoma City, through its Assistant Municipal Counselor, filed its Response to the Application of Chris James stating that the property at issue, “specifically the 2004 Dodge Ram 1500 pickup truck{,j” had been released to Defendant Scheer pursuant to the Order Scheer procured on Sept. 24, 2010. Plaintiff, upon receipt of this filing, learned for the first time that the OKCPD did not have his vehicle in its possession.

29. Plaintiff then hired an attorney to investigate and resolve the matter.

30. On Feb. 25, 2011, the Leonards caused the OTC to issue a Certificate of Title to themselves doing business as “The Hudson Company Auto Brokers.” The transfer came through the OTC computer system while Plaintiff and his mother were at the Motor Vehicle Division obtaining certified copies of transfers that had occurred since the truck was stolen.

31. A Notice of Hearing on the Chris James Application was served by process sewer on the Leonards on the evening of Feb. 25, 2011. The document put the Leonards on notice that ownership of the 2004 model Dodge pickup they purchased from Defendant Scheer was disputed and that Chris James had reported the vehicle as stolen from him.

32. On Mar, 7, 2011, a Verified Motion to Vacate Order was filed in Case No. CP
2010-22 on behalf of Plaintiff herein, Chris James. The motion was set for hearing on Mar. 25,
2011. Notice of Hearing was given to Defendant Scheer, the Leonards, the City of Oklahoma
City, and Arrow Wrecking. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Order entered Sept. 24, 2010,
finding Schccr to be the “rightful owner” of the 2004 model Dodge pickup was vacated.

33. Plaintiff Chris James has incurred attorney fees, court costs, and legal expenses to vacate the Sept. 24, 2010, Order procured without notice by Defendant Scheer. The wrongful acts of Scheer made it necessary for Plaintiff to incur such fees and expenses for Plaintiff to protect his interest in the 2004 model Dodge pickup. Incurring these fees and expenses and continuing to incur such fees and expenses are the legal consequences set in motion by Scheer’s failure to provide notice to Plaintiff on Aug. 30, 2010, and Scheer’s obtaining of the entry of an Order on Sept. 24, 2010, by deliberate irregularity.

34. Plaintiff Chris James has made demand on the Leonards to return the 2004 model Dodge pickup to him in light of the vacation of the Order that was entered on Sept. 24, 2010. The Leonards willfully have failed to deliver the vehicle to Plaintiff. As a direct and proximate consequence of Defendant Scheer’s fraudulent sale of the vehicle to the Leonards, Plaintiff must continue to incur attorney fees, court costs, and legal expenses to quiet title against the Leonards who have converted the vehicle from Plaintiff.

35. Defendant Scheer should have known as of July 17, 2010, that the 2004 model Dodge pickup was stolen.

36. Defendant Scheer knew as of Aug. 17 or 18, 2010, that the 2004 model Dodge truck he acquired from Katia Sevilla had been reported as a stolen vehicle. Scheer was on actual notice because he had been handcuffed, placed and held in an OKCPD squad car, and the vehicle taken from him involuntarily and impounded by the OKCPD.

37. Notwithstanding that Scheer knew or should have known the vehicle was stolen, he converted and drove the truck more than twenty-thousand (20,000) miles and depreciated the vehicle as if it was his own.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AGAINST THE LEONARDS

38. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs I through 37 as if set forth here in their entirety.

39. Beginning on Feb. 25, 2011, when the Leonards were served with the Notice of Hearing by Plaintiff Chris James, they knew or should have known that the 2004 model Dodge pickup they purchased from Scheer was stolen.

40. By no later than Feb. 26, 2011, when Scheer emailed to James Leonard about the “fake” titles in the chain of title to the 2004 model Dodge pickup, the Leonards knew the vehicle was stolen.

41. Plaintiff made demand on the Leonards to return the vehicle to him once the Sept.
24, 2010, Order procured by Scheer was vacated. Notwithstanding the demand made on the Leonards by Plaintiff, they continue to convert and hold the 2004 model Dodge pickup as if it
was their own, instead of turning over the truck to Plaintiff and pursuing their breach of warranty cause of action and claim against Scheer.

42. At all times since Dec. 15, 2009, when the 2004 model Dodge pickup was stolen from Plaintiff, his status as the true and only lawful owner of the motor vehicle has continued unabated notwithstanding the theft of the chattel and its possession by others including without limitation Scheer and the Leonards doing business as “The Hudson Company Auto Brokers.”

CLAIMS ASSERTED AGAINST SCHEER

43. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 42 as if set forth here in their entirety.
Count One Fraudulent Procurement of Order and Fraudulent Sale

44. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 43 as if set forth here in their entirety

45. By his intentional acts and omissions, Defendant Scheer perpetrated a fraud when he procured the entry of an Order on Sept. 24, 2011, without notice.

46. By his intentional acts and omissions, Defendant Scheer is in breach of obligation not arising from contract, the measure of damages of which is the amount which will compensate Plaintiff for all detriment proximately caused thereby, regardless of whether it could have been anticipated or not by Scheer.

47. As a direct and proximate result of Scheer’s acts and omissions, it was necessary for Plaintiff Chris James to incur reasonable attorney fees, court costs, and other legal expenses to vacate the Sept. 24, 2010, Order and to protect his legal ownership of and interest in the 2004 model Dodge pickup.

48. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to the entry of Judgment against Scheer in the amount of approximately eighty-five hundred dollars ($8,500.00) already incurred to vacate the Order Scheer wrongfully caused to be entered on Sept. 24, 2010.

49. Plaintiff also is entitled to the entry of Judgment against Scheer in an amount to be determined for reasonable attorney fees, court costs, and other legal expenses incurred by Plaintiff in the pursuit of his action against the Leonards to quiet title against them as Scheer’s sale of the vehicle to them was made when Scheer knew he could not convey a valid title as there were “fake” titles in his own chain of title and he had acquired the vehicle directly or indirectly from a thief

50. Punitive damages should be awarded pursuant to a Judgment against Defendant Scheer based on Scheer’s misconduct and reckless disregard for the rights of others and for sake of making an example of and punishing Scheer.
Count Two: Conversion and Wronaful Detention

51. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 50 as if set forth here in their entirety.
52. By his acts and omissions, Defendant Scheer intentionally prevented Plaintiff from having possession of the 2004 model Dodge pickup. Scheer’s acts and omissions constitute an unauthorized assumption and exercise of the right of ownership over the goods or personal chattels of Plaintiff which was tortious.

53. At no time did Plaintiff consent to Scheer’s possession of the 2004 model Dodge pickup.
54. Scheer’s acts and omissions constitute an unauthorized assumption and exercise of the right of ownership over the motor vehicle of another.

55. Plaintiff has been harmed by Scheer’s unlawful possession of the vehicle.

56. As a direct and proximate consequence of Defendant Scheer’s conversion of the vehicle, Plaintiff is entitled to the entry of a Judgment against Scheer in the greater of (a) the value of the vehicle at the time of the conversion with interest from that time; or (b) the highest
market value of the property at any time between the time of the conversion and the jury verdict plus a fair compensation for the time and money properly expended by Plaintiff in his pursuit of the vehicle.

57. Plaintiff also is entitled to a Judgment for damages against Scheer for Scheer’s detention of the 2004 model Dodge pickup including without limitation the usable value of the vehicle while detained by Scheer in an amount to be proven at trial.

58. Punitive damages should be awarded pursuant to a Judgment against Defendant Scheer based on Scheer’s misconduct and reckless disregard for the rights of others and for sake of making an example of and punishing Scheer.

CLAIMS ASSERTED AGAINST THE LEONARDS

59. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 58 as if set forth here in their entirety.

Count One: Conversion

60. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 59 as if set forth here in their entirety.

61. By their acts and omissions, the Leonards intentionally have prevented and continue to prevent Plaintiff from having possession of the 2004 model Dodge pickup. The acts and omissions by the Leonards constitute an unauthorized assumption and exercise of the right of ownership over goods or personal chattels of another.

62. The Leonards’ acts and omissions constitute an unauthorized assumption and exercise of the right of ownership over the motor vehicle of another.

63. Plaintiff has been harmed by the unlawful possession of the vehicle by the Leonards.

64. As a direct and proximate consequence of the conversion of the vehicle by the Leonards, Plaintiff is entitled to the entry of a Judgment against them in the greater of (a) the
value of the vehicle at the time of the conversion with interest from that time; or (b) the highest market value of the property at any time between the time of the conversion and the jury verdict plus a fair compensation for the time and money properly expended by Plaintiff in his pursuit of the vehicle.

65. Punitive damages should be awarded pursuant to a Judgment against the Leonards based on their deliberate misconduct and reckless disregard for the rights of others and for sake of making an example of and punishing them.
Count Two: quiet Title and to Recover Possession of Personal Property

66. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs I through 65 as if set forth here in their entirety.

67. The Leonards doing business as “The Hudson Company Auto Brokers” detained and continue to detain the 2004 model Dodge pickup wrongfully, willfully, and knowingly notwithstanding that Plaintiff is the lawful owner of said property.

68. Plaintiff is entitled to the entry of Judgment against the Leonards doing business as “The Hudson Company Auto Brokers” for the recovery of possession of the 2004 model Dodge pickup.

69. Plaintiff is entitled to the entry of Judgment against the Leonards doing business as “The Hudson Company Auto Brokers” for damages arising from their detention of the 2004 model Dodge pickup including the usable value of the vehicle in amounts to be proven at trial.

70. Further, the Leonards must be ordered to execute and assign the Oklahoma
Certificate of Title issued to them by the OTC on Feb. 25, 2011, which registered “The Hudson
Company Auto Brokers” as the record owner of the 2004 model Dodge pickup, in favor of
Plaintiff as Plaintiff is the true and lawful owner of the vehicle, and in order to correct the
official ownership records of the Motor Vehicle Division of the OTC with respect to the vehicle.

71. Judgment against the Leonards should be entered in accordance with 12 OKLA. STAT. § 1580 in an amount to be set by the Court for the reasonable attorney fees incurred by Plaintiff to recover possession of his personal property from the Leonards.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

72. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.

DEMAND AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, premises duly considered, Plaintiff Chris James demands and prays for the entry of Judgments against Defendant Scheer and against Defendants James and Toni Leonard doing business as “The Hudson Company Auto Brokers” in amounts sufficient to compensate Plaintiff for all injuries suffered at the hands of the Defendants; that punitive damages be awarded to make examples of them to others in the community and to deter others from engaging in similarly intentional and tortious conduct; and such other legal or equitable relief to which Plaintiff is entitled whether by statute or common law.

Defendants James Leonard and Toni Leonard appeared and answered as follows:

1. Leonard admits that Scheer sold the vehicle subject to this action, hereinafter called the “Dodge,” to Leonard. Leonard has insufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 1 of the Petition.

2. Admit.

THE PARTIES. JURISDICTION. AN]) VENUE

3. Leonard has insufficient information to admit or deny contained in Paragraph 3.

4. Admit.
the allegations

5. Paragraph 5 of the Petition states a legal conclusion and requires no response.

6. Admit.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AGAINST SCHEER

7. Leonard has insufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 7 and therefore demands strict proof thereof

8. Leonard has insufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 and therefore demands strict proof thereof.

9. Admit that a December 21, 2009 affidavit for transfer of ownership was signed, which document speaks for itself Leonard has insufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations and therefore demands strict proof thereof.

10. Leonard has insufficient information to admit the allegations of Paragraph 10 of the Petition and therefore demand strict proof thereof

11. Leonard has insufficient information to admit the allegations of Paragraph 11 of the Petition and therefore demand strict proof thereof

12. Leonard has insufficient information to admit the allegations of Paragraph 12 of the Petition and therefore demand strict proof thereof

13. Leonard has insufficient information to admit the allegations of Paragraph 13 of the Petition and therefore demand strict proof thereof

14. Leonard has insufficient information to admit the allegations of Paragraph 14 of the Petition and therefore demand strict proof thereof

15. Leonard has insufficient information to admit the allegations of Paragraph 15 of the Petition and therefore demand strict proof thereof.

16. Leonard has insufficient information to admit the allegations of Paragraph 16 of the Petition and therefore demand strict proof thereof.

17. Leonard has insufficient information to admit the allegations of Paragraph 17 of the Petition and therefore demand strict proof thereof.

18. Leonard has insufficient information to admit the allegations of Paragraph 18 of the Petition and therefore demand strict proof thereof

19. Admit that an application was filed in Case No. CP-20 10-22, which pleadings in said cause speak for themselves. Leonard has insufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations and therefore demands strict proof
thereof.

20. The pleadings in the cause that are referenced in Paragraph 20 of the Petition speak for themselves.

21. On information and belief, Leonard denies the allegations in Paragraph 21 of the Petition.

22. Leonard has insufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 22 of the Petition and therefore demands strict proof thereof

23. Admit that an order was entered in CP-20l0-22 on September 24, 2010 which order speaks for itself. Leonard has insufficient information to admit the remaining allegations of Paragraph 23 of the Petition and therefore demands strict proof thereof.

24. Leonard has insufficient information to admit the allegations of Paragraph 24 of the Petition and therefore demands strict proof thereof

25. Leonard admits that an application was filed in Case No. CP-201 1-02 and the pleadings in said cause speak for themselves. Leonard has insufficient information to admit the remaining allegations and therefore demand strict proof thereof.

26. Leonard has insufficient information to admit the allegations of Paragraph 26 of the Petition and therefore demand strict proof thereof.

27. Leonard admits that Scheer sold the Dodge to Leonard for $7,500.00 paid by a check to the order of Tom Scheer. Admit that Scheer warranted title to the Dodge to Leonard. Leonard has insufficient information to admit the remaining allegations and therefore demand strict proof thereof.

28. Leonard has insufficient information to admit the allegations of Paragraph 28 of the Petition only to state that any pleading filed as referenced in said allegations speak for themselves.

29. Leonard has insufficient information to admit the allegations of Paragraph 29 of the Petition and demands strict proof thereof

30. Leonard admits that the Oklahoma Tax Commission issued a Certificate of Title to the Dodge to The Hudson Company Auto Brokers. Leonard has insufficient information to admit the remaining allegations of Paragraph 30 and demands strict proof thereof.

31. Admit that a pleading was served on Leonard. The document served speaks for itself.

32. Admit that a Motion to Vacate Order was filed in Case No. CP-2010-22 and which pleading speaks for itself. Leonard admits receivthg notice of a hearing. Admit that the court entered an order vacating its prior Order, which Order speaks for itself.

33. Leonard has insufficient information to admit the allegations of Paragraph 23 of the Petition and therefore demand strict proof thereof

34. Deny that the Leonards have wrongfully failed to deliver the Dodge vehicle to Plaintiff. Admit that a demand has been made on the Leonards to return the Dodge vehicle.

35. Deny.

36. On information and belief, Leonard denies the allegations of Paragraph 36 of the Petition.

37. Leonard has insufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 37 of the Petition and therefore demands strict proof thereof.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AGAINST THE LEONARDS

38. Leonard incorporates by reference their responses to Paragraphs 1-37 of the Petition as if fully set forth herein.

39. Admit that Leonard was served with a notice of hearing, but deny the remaining allegations.

40. Deny the allegations of Paragraph 40 of the Petition.

41. Admit that Plaintiff demanded Leonard return the Dodge vehicle. Deny the remaining allegations.

42. The allegations of Paragraph 42 of the Petition are denied.

CLAIMS ASSERTED AGAINST SCHEER

43. Leonard incorporates by reference his responses to Paragraphs 1-42 of the Petition as if fully set forth herein.

44. Leonard incorporates its responses to Paragraphs 1-43 of the Petition.

45. Leonard has insufficient information to admit the allegations of Paragraph 45 of the Petition and therefore demands
strict proof thereof.

46. Leonard has insufficient information to admit the allegations of Paragraph 46 of the Petition and therefore demands strict proof thereof.

47. Leonard has insufficient information to admit the allegations of Paragraph 47 of the Petition and therefore demands strict proof thereof

48. Paragraph 48 does not involve any interest of Leonard and therefore no response from Leonard is necessary.

49. Deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any judgment against Leomrd.

50. Paragraph 50 does not involve facts or allegations affecting Leonard, therefore no response is necessary.

51. Leonard incorporates its responses in Paragraphs 1-50.

52. The allegations of Paragraph 52 of the Petition do not involve allegations against Leonard and therefore no response is necessary.

53. The allegations of Paragraph 53 of the Petition do not involve allegations against Leonard and therefore no response is necessary.

54. The allegations of Paragraph 54 of the Petition do not involve allegations against Leonard and therefore no response is necessary.

55. The allegations of Paragraph 55 of the Petition do not involve allegations against Leonard and therefore no response is necessary.

56. The allegations of Paragraph 56 of the Petition do not involve allegations against Leonard and therefore no response is necessary.

57. The allegations of Paragraph 57 of the Petition do not involve allegations against Leonard and therefore no response is necessary.

58. The allegations of Paragraph 58 of the Petition do not involve allegations against Leonard and therefore no response is necessary.

CLAIMS ASSERTED AGAINST THE LEONARDS

59. Leonard incorporates its responses for Paragraphs 5 1-58 of the Petition.

60. Leonard incorporates its responses for Paragraphs 1-50 of its Answer.

61. Leonard denies the allegations of Paragraph 61 of the Petition.

62. Leonard denies the allegations of Paragraph 62 of the Petition.

63. Leonard denies the allegations of Paragraph 63 of the Petition.

64. Leonard denies the allegations of Paragraph 64 of the Petition.

65. Leonard denies the allegations of Paragraph 65 of the Petition.

66. Defendants incorporate their answers to Paragraphs 1-65 of the Petition.

67. Leonard admits doing business as The Hudson Company Auto Brokers and admit they remain in possession of the Dodge vehicle, but deny that this possession is wrongful.

68. Leonard denies the allegations of Paragraph 68 of the Petition.

69. Leonard denies the allegations of Paragraph 69 of the Petition.

70. Leonard denies the allegations of Paragraph 70 of the Petition.

71. Leonard denies the allegations of Paragraph 71 of the Petition.

72. No response is required for Paragraph 72.

COUNTERCLAIM

73. Plaintiffs and Scheer have made conflicting demands and statements concerning the rightful ownership of the Dodge
vehicle and therefore Leonard has elected to be merely a stakeholder and to claim no further interest in possession of the vehicle but, rather, interpleads possession of the vehicle to the Court to determine the proper person to be in possession of the Dodge vehicle which is subject to this action.

COUNTERCLAIM PLEADING IN THE ALTERNATIVE IN THE EVENT THE COURT DETERMINES THAT PLAINTIFF IS THE RIGHTFUL OWNER OF THE DODGE VEHICLE WHICH IS THE SUBJECT TO THIS ACTION AND THAT POSSESSION OF THE VEHICLE IS TO BE TURNED OVER TO PLAINTIFF

74. Leonard is entitled to judgment against Thomas Craig Scheer for the original
purchase price paid to Thomas Scheer in the amount of $7,500.00 together with the sum of $1,412.50 for reimbursement for expenses incurred as a result of the purchase of the Dodge vehicle from Scheer and recovery of attomeys fees incurred for the defense of this action and the prosecution of this claim against Scheer.

WHEREFORE, Leonard prays that the Court issue an order allowing the interpleader of the Dodge vehicle, which is the subject of this action to be made to the Court and that Leonard be held harmless from any claim regarding possession or ownership of the Dodge vehicle and in the alternative, if Plaintiff is found to be the owner of the Dodge vehicle, that Leonard be granted a judgment against Scheer in the amount of $7,500.00, plus expenses in the amount of $1,412.50 plus reasonable attorneys fees incurred in the defense and prosecution of this action and such other relief as may be just and proper.

Defendant Thomas Scheer appeared and answered as follows:

1. Scheer denies the Leonards are entitled to ajudgment against him as set forth in ¶
74 of their Cross-claim.

ADDITIONAL DEFENSES

2. If the vehicle in question was actually stolen, a fact which Scheer has no personal knowledge, Scheer was as much or more of a victim than the Leonards, as Scheer purchased the vehicle in question in good faith, made improvements to the vehicle, and ultimately sold it for a loss.

WHEREFORE, having fully responded to the Cross-claim, Scheer respectfully demands that judgment be rendered in his favor with costs cast upon the Leonards.

Outcome: JUDGE DAVIS; DEFENDANTS JAMES LEONARD AND TONI LEONARD D/B/A THE HUDSON COMPANY AUTO BROKERS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT THOMAS CRAIG SCHEER - SUSTAINED AS PER JOURNAL ENTRY

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: