Date: 08-16-2013

Case Style: Daryl Ray Fairley v. Solitaire Homes, Inc.

Case Number: CJ-2013-86

Judge: Phillip C. Corley

Court: District Court, Payne County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Micah D. Sexton

Defendant's Attorney: Randy Dean Witzke

Description: Daryl Ray Fairley sued Solitaire Homes, Inc. seeking a declaratory judgment claiming:

1. The Plaintiff, Daryl Fairley (the “Plaintiff”) is a resident of Perkins, Payne County, Oklahoma. The manufactured home which is the subject of this action is located in Perkins, Payne County, Oklahoma.

2. The Defendant Solitaire Homes, Inc., is a Texas corporation and is the manufacturer of the manufactured home at issue herein.

3. In or about October, 2006, the Plaintiff, Daryl Fairley, purchased a 2007 Solitaire R380 manufactured home, VIN #EHIDOKF394, (the Manufactured Home”) from the Defendant, Solitaire Homes, Inc. a 2003 Ford Focus LX, VIN #1 FAFP33P33W273585 (hereinafter, the “Car”).

4. At the time that Plaintiff, Daryl Fairley, purchased the Manufactured Home from Defendant, Plaintiff received an MSO (manufacturer’s statement of origin) from Defendant which could be used by Plaintiff to transferthe title forthe Manufactured Home to Plaintiff. Plaintiff financed the home through Stroud National Bank, who used the MSO to put a lien on the Manufactured Home. However, after putting its lien on the Manufactured Home, Stroud National Bank returned the MSO to Plaintiff, Daryl Fairley, and instructed him to use the MSO to title the Manufactured Home in Plaintiffs name. Regretfully, priorto transferring the Manufactured Home into Plaintiffs name, Plaintiff lost the MSO issued by Defendant.

5. Plaintiff now desires to refinance his loan, but because he does not have an Oklahoma title to the Manufactured Home, he cannot do so. Plaintiff contacted Defendant to see about getting a new MSO for the Manufactured Home, but Defendant will not issue new MSO’s on homes more than five (5) years old.

6. Plaintiff, Daryl Fairley, purchased the Manufactured Home new from the Defendant, and has owned the Manufactured Home from the time he purchased it from Defendant, and up to the date of filing this Petition, and is currently the owner of the Manufactured Home. However, because Plaintiff lost the MSO given to him by Defendant, and cannot now obtain a new MSO, Plaintiff desires for this Court to determine Cause of Action - Declaratory Judgment

10. This Court should enter its judgment declaring thatthe Plaintiff, Daryl Fairley, Perkins, Oklahoma, is the true owner of the Manufactured Home by virtue of his purchase of the same from Defendant. Moreover, this Court should further declare that the Plaintiff is entitled to be issued a valid title from the Oklahoma Tax Commission on the Manufactured Home.

11. This Court should further find that the right, title, and interest of the Plaintiff in the Manufactured Home is prior and superior to any right, title, lien, claim, assessment or interest, if any, claimed by the Defendant, Solitaire Homes, Inc., if any, and that after the entry of a judgment herein, the Defendant and all persons claiming by, through or under it, will be hereinafter barred from asserting any right, title, lien, claim, assessment or interest in and to the Manufactured Home.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff, Daryl Fairley, Perkins, Oklahoma, prays for an Order of the Court determining that the Plaintiff is the true owner of the Manufactured Home by virtue of his purchase of the same from Solitaire Homes, Inc., and further determining that the Plaintiff is entitled to be issued a valid title to the Manufactured Home from the Oklahoma Tax Commission, and that the right, title and interest of the said Defendant as above set forth, as well as any other right, title and interest said Defendant, if any, ever had, now have or claim to have in and to said Manufactured Home, be determined and settled and be adjudged junior, inferior, and subject to the right, title and interest of this Plaintiff, and that the Defendant herein, and all persons claiming by, through or under it since the commencement of this action, be forever barred, foreclosed and enjoined from asserting or claiming any right, title or interest, estate or equity of redemption in or to the Manufactured Home, or any part thereof.

Defendant appeared and answered as follows:

1. To the extent Plaintiffs Petition alleges facts or law inconsistent with that stated in this Answer and Disclaimer of Interest, the same are denied, and strict proof demanded.

2. Solitaire Homes, Inc. (hereafter “SHI”) is a Texas corporation duly authorized to conduct business in the State of Oklahoma. SHI is a retailer of Solitaire® brand manufactured homes, including the home subject to this lawsuit.

3. Elliott Homes, Inc. (hereafter “EHI”) is an Oklahoma corporation. At all times relevant to this lawsuit, EHI was a manufacturer of Solitaire® brand manufactured homes, including the home subject to this lawsuit.

4. The home which is the subject of this Declaratory Judgment action is serial # EHIDOKF394 (hereafter “F394”)

5. EHI manufactured F394 on or about 09/25/2006.

6. SHI sold F394 to Plaintiff on or about 10/04/2006.

7. Possession of F394 and the accompanying MSO (Manufacturer’s Statement of Origin) were transferred to Plaintiff in October 2006.

8. Since October 2006, SHI and Eu have had no control over F394, the status of the MSO, or the status of title work (if any) of or to F394.

9. Since October 2006, SHI and EHI have no knowledge of events, if any, in Plaintiffs life which may affect Plaintiffs legal or equitable ownership of F394; and/or which would have been sufficient to grant ownership, claim to, or interest in F394 to or by third persons or entities.

10. Therefore, while SHI and Eu do not dispute Plaintiffs claim of sole interest and ownership in F394, neither can SHI or EHI independently vouch for unencumbered ownership and interest of Plaintiff necessary to accommodate Eu’s issuance of a duplicate MSO regarding F394.

11. SHI and EHI do hereby affirmatively DISCLAIM ANY iNTEREST in or to F394.

12. Sill and Eu further state that, if the Court is satisfied that:

A. Issuance of a duplicate MSO in reference to F394 is appropriate under these circumstances;

B. There are no other persons or entities entitled to make legal, equitable, contractual or lien claims against the home and that Plaintiff is the sole person or entity entitled to issuance of a duplicate MSO; and

C. The Court authorizes and/or Orders EHI to issue a duplicate MSO to Plaintiff; then EHI will do so promptly, and deliver the same to Plaintiff’s counsel.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant Solitaire Homes, Inc. and Intervener Elliott Homes, Inc. pray that, should the Court determine that issuance of a duplicate MSO to Solitaire® brand manufactured home EHIDOKF394 to Daryl Fairley is appropriate and proper, that the Court will enter its Order authorizing Elliott Homes, Inc. to issue such a duplicate MSO.

Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment stating the following in support of the motion:

Plaintiff, Daryl Fairley, (“Fairley”) hereby moves this Court to enter judgment in rem and in personam against the Defendant Solitaire Homes, Inc., pursuant to Rule 13 of the Rules for District Courts of Oklahoma on the grounds that the pleadings and exhibits filed in the above styled case show that there is no substantial controversy as to any material fact. In support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, Citizens alleges and states as follows:

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS

AS TO WHICH NO GENUINE ISSUES EXIST

The following are the facts as to which no material controversy exists. The sources of these facts are the documents attached as exhibits to this Brief in Support of Motion for Statement of Facts

1. The Plaintiff, Daryl Fairley (the “Plaintiff’) is a resident of Perkins, Payne County, Oklahoma. The manufactured home which is the subject of this action is located in Perkins, Payne County, Oklahoma. See, Affidavit of Daryl Fairley, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”.

2. The Defendant Solitaire Homes, Inc., is a Texas corporation and is the manufacturer of the manufactured home at issue herein. The Intervenor, Elliott Homes, Inc., is an Oklahoma corporation and the seller of the manufactured home at issue herein. See, Affidavit of Daryl Fairley, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”.

3. In or about October, 2006, the Plaintiff, Daryl Fairley, purchased a 2007 Solitaire R380 manufactured home, VIN #EHIDOKF394, (the Manufactured Home”) from the Defendant, Solitaire Homes, Inc. and the Intervener, Elliott Homes, Inc. Plaintiff negotiated a price to be paid Defendant/Intervener for the Manufactured Home, and such negotiated price was fair consideration for the Manufactured Home. See, Affidavit of Daryl Fairley, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”.

4. At the time that Plaintiff, Daryl Fairley, purchased the Manufactured Home from Defendant and Intervener, Plaintiff received an MSO (manufacturer’s statement of origin) from Defendant and/or Intervener which could be used by Plaintiff to transfer the title for the Manufactured Home to Plaintiff. Plaintiff financed the home through Stroud National Bank, who used the MSO to put a lien on the Manufactured Home. However, after putting its lien on the Manufactured Home, Stroud National Bank returned the MSO to Plaintiff, Daryl Fairley, and instructed him to use the MSO to title the Manufactured Home in Plaintiff’s name. Regretfully, prior to transferring the Manufactured Home into Plaintiff’s name, Plaintiff lost the MSO issued by Defendant. See, Affidavit of Daryl Fairley, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”.

5. Plaintiff now desires to refinance his loan, but because he does not have an Oklahoma title to the Manufactured Home, he cannot do so. Plaintiff contacted Defendant and/or Intervener to see about getting a new MSO for the Manufactured Home, but Defendant and Intervener will not issue new MSO’s on homes more than five (5) years old. See, Affidavit of Daryl Fairley, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”.

6. Plaintiff, Daryl Fairley, purchased the Manufactured Home new from the Defendant, and has owned the Manufactured Home from the time he purchased it from Defendant and Intervener, and up to the date of filing this Petition, and is currently the owner of the Manufactured Home. Moreover, Plaintiff, Daryl Fairley is currently not married. Plaintiff was divorced in 2008, but pursuant to the Divorce Decree entered in Case No. FD-2008-116, Payne County District Court, the Manufactured Home was awarded to Plaintiff. No other person may claim any right, title, lien, claim, assessment or interest in and to the Manufactured Home except for Plaintiff, Daryl Fairley, and Stroud National Bank, who holds a lien thereon. See, Affidavit of Daryl Fairley, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”.

7. Because Plaintiff lost the MSO given to him by Defendant and/or Intervener, and cannot now obtain a new MSO, Plaintiff desires for this Court to determine that Plaintiff, Daryl Fairley, is the sole and only owner of the Manufactured Home, and that Plaintiff has been the only owner and the only person who can claim any right, title, lien, claim, assessment or interest in and to the Manufactured Home since the time that Plaintiff, Daryl Fairley, purchased the same. Moreover, Plaintiff prays that this Court determine that he is entitled to be issued a new MSO for the Manufactured Home, and this Court should order Defendant and/or Intervener to issue a new MSO for the Manufactured Home to the Plaintiff. See, Affidavit of Daryl Fairley, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”. General Principles Underlying Rule 13

Summary judgment should be granted where the facts set forth in detail show no substantial controversy as to any material fact. First Nat’l Bank and Trust Co. of Oklahoma v. Nesbiff, 598 P.2d 1197 (OkIa. 1979); Weeks v. Wedgewood Village, Inc., 554 P.2d 780 (OkIa. 1976).

A party opposing a Motion for Summary Judgment must come forth with contradictory evidence to support a trial of the issues. A party cannot simply rely on his pleadings in opposition to affidavits and other materials in support of a Motion for Summary Judgment. See, American Nat’l Bank and Trust Co. of Shawnee v. Clark & Vanwagner, Inc., 692 P.2d 691 (OkIa. App. 1984; Zaragosa v. Oneok, Inc., 700 P.2d 662 (Okia. App. 1984). The nature of a summary judgment is a proceeding to determine whether there is conflicting evidence of the existence of material facts which should otherwise be tried, and as such rendering a trial of the issues unnecessary. Anderson v. Falcon Drilling Co., 695 P.2d 521 (OkIa. 1986).

No fact questions have been raised by Defendants to dispute the ownership of the Real Property at issue herein by the Plaintiffs nor raising any defense thereto. The Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to judgment on THEIR claims against Defendants. Poafpybitty v. Skelly Oil Co., 517 P.2d 432 (OkIa. 1973); Riesingers Jewelers, Inc. v. Roberson, 582 P.2d 409 (OkIa. App. 1979); French v. Sotheby& Co., 470 P.2d 318 (OkIa. App. 1970).

I. The Defendant and Intervener Have No Right, Title Or Interest in and to the Manufactured Home, Because

Plaintiff Paid Fair Consideration for It to Defendantllntervener As this Court can see from Undisputed Fact No. 3 above, in October, 2006, Plaintiff purchased the Manufactured Home from the Defendant and Intervener in this action. Plaintiff negotiated a price to be paid Defendant/Intervener for the Manufactured Home, and such negotiated price was fair consideration for the Manufactured Home. The Plaintiff paid the negotiated price, and the Plaintiff and/or Intervener delivered the Manufactured Home to the Plaintiff.

A sale is accomplished by a meeting of the minds upon a common understanding of the contracting parties, the payment, or its equivalent of the consideration, accompanied by the delivery of the property. Collinsville Nat’l Bank v. Esau, 74 OkIa. 45, 176 P. 514 (1918). Where there is unconditional contract for sale of specific goods in deliverable condition, property in or title to the goods passes to buyer when the contract is made. Republic Supply Co. v. Ledbetter, 434 P.2d 251 (OkIa. 1967).

As this Court can see, in the present case, the Plaintiff and the Defendant and Intervener entered into a unconditional contract for the sale of the Manufactured Home. Plaintiff paid the contract price agreed upon by the parties, and the Defendant and Intervener delivered the Manufactured Home to the Plaintiff. Under the authority cited above, title to the Manufactured Home has passed to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant and Intervener have no right, title, lien, claim, assessment or interest herein.

II. No Other Person, Other than Plaintiff, Can Claim Any Right, Title, Lien, Claim, Assessment or Interest in and to the Manufactured Home At Issue in the Present Case.

As stated in ¶6 of the Undisputed Statement of Facts above, Plaintiff, Daryl Fairley, purchased the Manufactured Home new from the Defendant and Intervener, and ha owned the Manufactured Home from ihe time he purchased it from Defendant and Intervener and up to the date of filing this Petition. Plaintiff is currently the owner of the Manufactured Home. Moreover, Plaintiff, Daryl Fairley is currently not married. Plainti was divorced in 2008, but pursuant to the Divorce Decree entered in Case No. FD-2008- 116, the Manufactured Home was awarded to Plaintiff. No other person may claim any right, title, lien, claim, assessment or interest in and to the Manufactured Home except for Plaintiff, Daryl Fairley, and Stroud National Bank, who holds a security interest and lien thereon. Because Plaintiff is the only person (other than Stroud National Bank, who holds a security interest in the Manufactured Home) who can claim any right, title, lien, claim, assessment or interest in the Manufactured Home, no other person’s rights in the Manufactured Home will be affected by Defendant and/or Intervener issuing a new MSO to the Manufactured Home. Therefore, this Court should order the Defendant and/or Intervener to issue a new MSO to the Plaintiff, so that he may title the Manufactured Home in his name, to be able to refinance the same through Stroud National Bank, who currently holds a security interest in the Manufactured Home.

Conclusion

Plaintiff, Daryl Fairley, prays that this Court award judgment against the Defendant and Intervener, Solitaire Homes, Inc. and Elliott Homes, Inc. finding that Plaintiff is sole and only owner of the Manufactured Home and that no other person (other than Stroud National Bank) can claim any right, title, lien, claim, assessment or interest in and to the Manufactured Home. Plaintiff is entitled to have his title to the Manufactured Home quieted in Plaintiff, subject to the security interest held by Stroud National Bank therein.

Further, Plaintiff prays that this Court order Defendant and/or Intervener, to issue a new MSO for the Manufactured Home to Plaintiff, so that Plaintiff may obtain an Oklahoma title to the Manufactured Home. Plaintiff prays for such additional relief, at law or in equity, to which he may otherwise be entitled.

Solitaire Homes, LLC responded as follows:

COME NOW, SOLITAIRE HOMES, NC, Defendant herein (hereafter “Solitaire”), and ELLIOTT HOMES, NC., Intervener herein (hereafter “Elliott”), for their Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, state:

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S STA TEMENT OF 1114 TERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH NO GENUINE ISSUES EXIST

General Statement

Neither Elliott nor Solitaire make any claim to the subject manufactured home. Elliott and Solitaire have already affirmatively disclaimed interest in the home in their initial Pleadings filed in this matter.

The issue in this case revolves around the fact the Plaintiff and/or his now ex wife purchased a manufactured home built by Elliott from Solitaire in October of 2006. Plaintiff apparently lost the original MSO to the home, thus never obtained a title to the home from the Oklahoma Tax Commission. Plaintiff recently requested another MSO from Solitaire and/or Elliott. Because Elliott and Solitaire have no idea what the ownership status of the home was in general; and in particular had no idea if anyone might have claims to, interest in, or liens against, the home since the time it was sold approximately seven years ago; Elliott and Solitaire could not responsibly just recreate a substitute for a lost MSO. Elliott and Solitaire were not, and should not be required at their own peril, to facilitate a “restart” of the original titling process if there were other potential claimants to the home in the intervening time.’ Elliott and Solitaire’s concerns can be obviated by the Court’s Judgment in this case. If the Court is satisfied that no one, except Plaintiff and Stroud National Bank, have any right, title or interest in and to the manufactured home, Elliott and Solitaire will abide by the Court’s directions in issuance and assignment of a duplicate MSO. Response to Plaintiff’s Statements of Facts

Solitaire and Elliott shall refer to each numbered statement of fact set forth in Plaintiff’s brief, without restating the same, unless correction or clarification is necessary.

1. Admitted.

2. Denied as stated. Plaintiff has the entities’ roles reversed. Elliott was the manufacturer. Solitaire was the retailer. Subject to that correction, Admitted.

3. Admitted as to Solitaire. Denied as to Elliott. Solitaire is the sole entity which sold the home to Plaintiff. Elliott was not in contractual privity with Plaintiff.

4. Admitted that Elliott issued a MSO on the home to Solitaire as retailer; and Solitaire then assigned the MSO to Plaintiff and/or his (now ex) wife. Elliott and Solitaire have no independent knowledge of the remaining facts set forth in paragraph 4; but accept and admit Plaintiffs sworn affidavit supporting this paragraph to be true and correct.

5. Admitted. Elliott and Solitaire have explained the reason for inability to issue a duplicate MSO without the Court’s Judgment. A duplicate MSO will be produced and assigned upon receipt of the Court’s Judgment.

6. Elliott and Solitaire have no independent knowledge of the facts set forth in paragraph 6; but accept and admit Plaintiffs sworn affidavit supporting this paragraph to be true and correct.

7. If the Court is satisfied that Plaintiff is the proper party to whom a duplicate MSO should be issued, and so orders, Elliott and Solitaire will comply. Because the Plaintiff has averred that the Bank of Stroud holds a lien and security interest on the home, the duplicate MSO must reflect that fact.

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S ARGUMENTAND A UTHORJTY

Proposition 1: Solitaire and Elliott admit, and indeed have never claimed, any right, title or interest in and to the manufactured home since the time of sale in 2006.

Elliott and Solitaire make no claim to the home. All Elliott and Solitaire ask is for the Court’s Judgment and instructions as to whom a duplicate MSO should be issued and assigned. Based on the Plaintiffs evidence, it would appear the Court should order the proper party is Plaintiff alone, with the Stroud National Bank’s lien protected.

Proposition 2: Based on Plaint(f’s evidence, Elliott and Solitaire are not aware of any other persons entitled to claim any right, title or interest in and to the manufactured home since the time of sale EXCEPT Stroud National Bank Elliott and Solitaire have no knowledge or information to contradict Plaintiffs sworn affidavit regarding the history and absence of adverse claims in or to the home. Elliott and Solitaire therefore accept the same as true. The Court should note, however, that Plaintiffs evidence demonstrates that Stroud National Bank financed the original purchase of the home, and apparently still retains a security interest and lien on the home. The MSO form has a place to record liens, and Stroud National Bank’s lien must be recorded thereon. If Stroud National Bank’s lien is not recorded on the MSO, Plaintiff would be able to title the home free and clear of the admittedly existing purchase money security interest / lien. Plaintiff has not indicated any intention of doing so, but the lien must nonetheless be recognized and protected.

CONCLUSION

Subject to the corrections made concerning Plaintiffs statement of facts, Elliott and Solitaire do not dispute Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment. Elliott and Solitaire waive the necessity of a hearing on this matter; if that is agreeable with the Court. Elliott and Solitaire have submitted a proposed Order granting the Motion to Plaintiff. Upon receipt of a signed, file stamped copy of the Judgment signed by the Court, Elliott and Solitaire will produce a Duplicate MSO.

Outcome: On this 9th day of July, 2013, Plaintiff Daryl Fairley’s Motion for Summary Judgment in the above styled and numbered cause of action came for consideration by the Court.

The Court, having reviewed the Petition of Plaintiff, the Answer, Intervention and Disclaimers of Interest by Solitaire Homes, Inc. and Elliott Homes, Inc.; the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and evidence supporting the same; the Defendant and Intervenors’ Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment; and being fully advised in the premises and satisfied as to the facts of this matter, FINDS AS FOLLOWS:

1. The Court has personal Jurisdiction over the parties.

2. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the manufactured home and the cause of action pled by Plaintiff.

3. The manufactured home in question is located in Payne County, the Plaintiff is a resident of Payne County, the sale of the home occurred in Payne County, the Defendant Solitaire Homes, Inc. does business in Payne County, and the Intervenor Elliott Homes, Inc. does business in Payne County. Venue is therefore properly before this Court.

4. In October of 2006, Daryl Fairley purchased a new 2007 model Solitaire manufactured home, serial #EHID-OK-F394 from Solitaire Homes, Inc. dlb/a Solitaire Homes of Stillwater.

5. Manufactured home serial #EHID-OK-F394 was manufactured by Elliott Homes, Inc.

6. On September 18, 2006, Elliott Manufactured homes, Inc. created a Manufacturer’s Certificate of Origin (MSO) on manufactured home serial #EHID-OK-F394 and supplied the same to Solitaire Homes, Inc.

7. Solitaire Homes, Inc. assigned the MSO on manufactured home serial #EHID-OK-F394 to Daryl Fairley in October of 2006, and physically delivered the assigned MSO to Mr. Fairley at that time.

8. Daryl Fairley fmanced the purchase of manufactured home serial #EHID-OK-F394 through Stroud National Bank.

9. As part of the financing transaction, Daryl Fairly tendered the MSO on manufactured home serial #EHID-OK-F394 to Stroud National Bank to record its security interest and lien on the MSO.

10. Stroud National Bank recorded its security interest and lien on the MSO on manufactured home serial #EHID-OK-F394 and returned the MSO to Daryl Fairly.

11. Daryl Fairley has lost the Original MSO on manufactured home serial #EHID-OK-F394.

12. Manufactured home serial #EHID-OK-F394 has never been formally titled.

13. Manufactured home serial #EHID-OK-F394 has remained in the same physical location since the date of delivery and installation on Daryl Fairley’s property.

14. Daryl Fairley has, since time of purchase and continuing until this date, exercised exclusive ownership and control over manufactured home serial #EHID-OK-F394.

15. Daryl Fairley was awarded sole ownership of manufactured home serial #EHID-OKF394 in the Decree of Divorce in Payne County District Court Case #FD-2008-1 16.

16. Solitaire Homes, Inc. and Elliott Homes, Inc. have affirmatively disclaimed any right, title or interest in and to manufactured home serial #EHID-OK-F394.

17. No other person or entity except Daryl Fairley, and Stroud National Bank (by virtue of its purchase money security interest / lien), have any right, title or interest in and to manufactured home serial #EHID-OK-F394.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:

1. Exclusive right, ownership and interest in and to manufactured home serial #EHID-OKF394 is hereby QUIETED in Daryl Fairley, subject to the lien of Stroud National Bank;

2. Elliott Homes, Inc. is Authorized and Ordered by this Court to produce and deliver to Solitaire Homes, Inc., a duplicate Manufacturer’s Certificate of Origin (MSO) on manufactured home serial #EHID-OK-F394. The date of manufacture shall be recorded as on the Original.

3. Solitaire Homes, Inc. is Authorized and Ordered by this Court to assign and deliver to Daryl Fairley (through his counsel), the duplicate Manufacturer’s Certificate of Origin (MSO) on manufactured home serial #EH1D-OK-F394. The date of assignment shall be recorded as on the Original.

4. The duplicate Manufacturer’s Certificate of Origin (MSO) on manufactured home serial #EHID-OK-F394 shall record the existence of Stroud National Bank’s lien in the space provided on the MSO.

5. Following issuance, assignment and delivery of the duplicate MSO as Authorized and Ordered herein by the Court, Elliott Homes, Inc. and Solitaire Homes, Inc. are absolved of responsibility or liability regarding the issuance and assignment of the Original MSO and the Duplicate MSO, to any other person or entity who may make or assert any claim of right, title or interest in and to manufactured home serial #EHID-OK-F394.

6. All parties shall bear their own costs, expenses and attorney fees incurred in this matter.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: