Chris and Ronda Turner v. Gerrell Beaty d/b/a Old School Construction and Carlene E. Beaty

Chris and Ronda Turner sued Gerrell Beaty d/b/a Old School Construction and Carlene E. Beaty claiming:



1. Plaintiffs are residents of Cleveland County.



2. Plaintiffs own the property at 10812 S. Eastside Drive in Oklahoma City,

Oklahoma.



3. Defendant, Gerrell Beaty dlbla Old School Construction, is an

Oklahoma company.



4. Defendant partially constructed the residence owned by Plaintiffs located

in Cleveland County, State of Oklahoma.



5. Venue and jurisdiction are properly within the District Court of Cleveland

County, State of Oklahoma.



GENERAL ALLEGATIONS



I. In October 2008, the parties entered into discussion about the house to be built on Eastside Drive.



2. On or about October 31, 2008, the parties entered into a Contract for

Home Construction for the property on 10812 S. Eastside Drive, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. (See Exhibit "A”)



3. Pursuant to the Contract for Home Construction, payment was to be made to the Defendant from the Plaintiffs for a total amount of $12,400.00. This amount was to be paid weekly at the rate of $450.00 per week in addition to a retainer of $2,000.00 payable on the date the funds were available from the line of credit.



4. Pursuant to the Contract for Home Construction, the house was to be completed by July 31, 2009.



5. The original loan request from First Fidelity on November 7, 2008, was for

$180,000. Plaintiffs were notified on November 14, 2008, they were approved for only

$168,000. Defendant claimed he would be able to build the house in between $150,000 and $160,000 because he had discounts with suppliers and subs.



6. Plaintiffs signed a loan with First Fidelity Bank for $168,000 on November

21, 2008.



7. On or about December 1, 2008, the parties entered into an Agreement for General Contract, which modified the size of the house from the original Contract for Home Construction. (See Exhibit "B”)



8. Plaintiffs paid Defendant the initial $2,000.00 on December 2, 2008. Plaintiffs also paid an additional $1,000.00 to Defendant for work to help a home moving company move an old home from the property.



9. Plaintiffs paid Defendant $1,700.00 for a skid steer rental to do dirt work on December 10, 2008.



10. Plaintiffs paid Defendant $4,999.00 on December 15, 2008. Of this

amount, $3,459.50 was for reimbursements, $1,350.00 was for three (3) weeks of pay, and $189.00 was for stem wall prep.



11. Plaintiffs paid Defendant $1,100.00 on December 17, 2008, for materials and labor for the footers/stem wall. Defendant informed Plaintiffs that it would be better to pay the laborers in cash as they did not want a paper trail and most did not have bank accounts.



12. Defendant requested $14,570.00 for concrete, supplies, subs for the slab plumbing, and a one-month advance on January 7, 2009. Defendant advised that the plumbing would be $3,900.00 for labor and supplies. Plaintiffs paid Defendant $16,872.00, which included the Defendant's pay for January.



13. On or about January 7, 2009, Plaintiffs realized their bankcard had been charged a total of $3,426.36 separately from Sooner Ready Mix. Plaintiffs were not aware their card had been placed on file at the cement company.



14. Defendant informed Plaintiffs on February 12, 2009, that their bankcard did not work at Lumber 2 and that Defendant had written a check that would not clear if Plaintiffs did not reimburse him. Defendant requested $15,000.00. Plaintiffs paid Defendant $17,000.00, which also included February's pay and extra for the card situation.



15. From December31, 2008 to February 20, 2009, Plaintiffs' bankcard was charged or they purchased $8,574.03 in lumber and $9,792.96 in doors and windows. These amounts are aside from the purchases allegedly made by the Defendant for which no receipts were given to Plaintiffs.



16. On February 18, 2009, Plaintiffs were contacted by Ron Minard of Minard

Plumbing and advised he had been underpaid by Defendant in the amount of $1800.00. Defendant advised Plaintiffs he had been told by Ron Minard that the plumbing for the entire house would be $3,900.00. Plaintiffs paid Ron Minard the additional $1,800.00. Mr. Minard did not pay the bill at Big Red Plumbing Supply, and a lien for $930.00 was placed on the Plaintiffs' house.



17. In or about the summer of 2009, Plaintiffs were informed that the workers were drinking beer at the construction site during the day and leaving the trash on the property.



18. Plaintiffs paid Defendant $4,500.00 on March 5, 2009. Of this amount,

$2,000.00 was for roofing materials and the roofing contractor and $1,200.00 was for laborers for the week of February 25 to March 3, 2009.



19. Plaintiffs paid Defendant $5,000.00 on March 11, 2009. Of this amount,

$3,000.00 was for the purchase of shingles and the remainder was for Defendant's pay for March.



20. Plaintiffs were informed by Defendant on April 2, 2009, that he had found a licensed electrician who would charge $3,000.00 to complete the "ruff- in” [sic] and trim out. The electrician wanted $1,500.00 for a start up fee and $200.00 to change the electrical permit over to his company. Plaintiffs paid Defendant an additional $1,800.00 for April's pay.



21. On April 10, 2009, Defendant requested a draw of $1,500.00 to purchase plumbing supplies. Plaintiffs later received a call from Big Red Supply in May to pay for plumbing supplies picked up by Defendant over the last month.



22. On April 16, 2009, Defendant requested a reimbursement of $8,320.00 to

pay for the bathroom windows, rafters for the garage, and lumber for the stairs and the siding. Defendant also requested an advance on his pay to visit his parents. Plaintiffs paid Defendant $10,120.00, which included the advance.



23. Plaintiffs paid Defendant $2,500.00 on April 30, 2009, after he informed them he had found a plumber who would charge $2,500.00 to finish the entire house.



24. On May 8, 2009, Defendant advised Plaintiffs that he needed $4,000.00 to purchase forms and for half of the labor for the pour and half of the concrete cost. Plaintiffs paid Defendant $4,000.00.



25. On May 15, 2009, Defendant advised Plaintiffs he needed $3,000.00 to complete the cement job. Plaintiffs paid Defendant $3,000.00. This job has still not been completed.



26. On June 3, 2009, Defendant requested an advance on the remainder of his contract so he could help his daughter secure a loan to build a house. Plaintiffs paid Defendant $4,400.00 on June 4, 2009.



27. Defendant rented a skid steer tractor from United Rentals beginning on June 2, 2009. The tractor was finally retrieved by United Rentals on November 6, 2009, at another site — not the Plaintiffs' property. Plaintiffs paid Defendant $500.00 for him to make a payment to United Rentals for the month of June. In total, Plaintiffs paid United Rentals an additional $6,366.18 directly for the rental of a skid steer tractor that was only on their property a total of five weeks.



28. On June 7, 2009, Defendant gave Plaintiffs a note describing expenses, with no attached receipts, he had in March. These expenses included $2,500.00 from his savings and $2,800.00 in pay. Plaintiffs paid Defendant $6,500.00.



29. On or about mid June 2009, Defendant advised the Plaintiffs they needed to hide the gas logs and firebox for the fireplace because he had not paid the City for a fireplace permit.



30. On June 26, 2009, Defendant advised Plaintiffs that all of the "ruff- in” inspections had passed and that insulation and sheet rocking would begin shortly. Plaintiffs paid Rick Rawson his last $300.00 for the HVAC ruff in installation on June 30, 2009. Mr. Rawson later called Plaintiffs in July and advised that the inspection was not successful because the HVAC "ruff- in” was not complete.



31. On June 30, 2009, Defendant gave Plaintiffs receipts and labor claims totaling $3,431.00. Plaintiffs paid Defendant $3,431.00. Defendant informed Plaintiffs that all of the house inspections had passed.



32. On July 10, 2009, Plaintiffs requested an additional $50,000.00 loan from the bank in order to finish their home. At this time in the process, less than 1/3 of the house was complete and the budget had surpassed $168,000.00.



33. On or about July 19, 2009, Plaintiffs advised Defendant to have Lee Mize and Chad Bennefield finish the insulating job the Plaintiffs had started. Plaintiffs paid Defendant $400.00 for him to pay the two men.



34. Although Plaintiffs were initially told by Defendant in June 2009, that the "ruff- in” inspections had passed, Plaintiffs were advised by Defendant on July 30, 2009, after realizing that the progress was being undone to make way for another set of inspections, that the original "ruff- in” inspections had actually not passed.



35. On or about August 2009, Plaintiffs were informed that someone had

broken into the site and taken the copper from the HVAC. Plaintiffs were later informed that Mr. Mize had only received $100.00. Plaintiffs were also informed by Mr. Bennefield that he had never been paid. The additional cost for the copper incident was $349.09 to replace the copper and $640.00 to replace the window.



36. The house was to be completed by July 31, 2009, per the Contract for Home Construction and subsequent Agreement for General Contract. As of this date, there was no drywall, no driveways, no patios, no trim, no cabinets, no exterior doors, etc. There was still three phases of the "ruff- in” that had not passed inspection.



37. On August 7, 2009, Plaintiffs paid Defendant $1,500.00 to cover labor or any other items needed while Plaintiffs were out of town. Two culverts were placed on the Plaintiffs' property. Plaintiffs' bankcard was billed for all of the forming material and the culverts. Labor had to be paid separately as Defendant had not paid the two workers. None of the advanced $1,500.00 was used on this job.



38. On August 13, 2009, Defendant advised Plaintiffs they needed to pay Rick Rusche $2,000.00 for the sheetrock purchase. Plaintiffs paid Defendant $2,000.00.



39. On August 15, 2009, Plaintiffs received a call from David Wigington at Agnew Door and Window requesting payment on the bath windows that were picked up in April 2009. Plaintiffs paid Agnew Door and Window $819.86. Plaintiffs later deduced that payment had already been made to Defendant for these windows on April 16, 2009.



40. On August 17, 2009, Defendant left a note on Plaintiffs' car requesting a

$4,200.00 loan. Defendant acknowledged that his contract had expired, but he was willing to finish the house after he did another job. He needed money to begin the project. Plaintiffs paid Defendant $4,200.00. None of this money was repaid or used on Plaintiffs' house.



41. On August 20, 2009, Defendant took one culvert from Plaintiffs' property to another project site. Defendant never reimbursed Plaintiffs the payment of

$279.00.



42. On August 24, 2009, Plaintiffs were informed by David Rhoades that many repairs needed to be made to the house before the drywall could be hung. He also advised Plaintiffs that many workers were leaving the job because they had not been paid. Plaintiffs paid Defendant $700.00 for labor pay. Defendant only paid David Rhoades $300.00 of the $700.00 he was owed. On September 4, 2009, Plaintiffs paid David Rhoades $470.00 to make him current.



43. On August 28, 2009, Defendant advised Plaintiffs they needed to pay Rick Rusche $3,000.00 for the first draw to hang the sheet rock. Plaintiffs paid Mr. Rusche $3,000.00.



44. On August 30, 2009, Defendant requested and Plaintiffs paid him $510.00 for labor on the concrete work on the back patio.



45. On September 11, 2009, Rick Rusche advised Plaintiffs the balance of his bill was $6,933.00. He informed Plaintiffs that the $3,000.00 advanced on August 28, 2009, was for the drywall and material purchase. Mr. Rusche advised Plaintiffs he never received the $2,000.00 Plaintiffs had advanced Defendant on August 13, 2009, for this job.



46. On September26 and 27, 2009, Defendant rented a trencher to trench and install the sprinkler lines. The rental for the trencher was $183.00, and Plaintiffs paid Defendant $200.00. This was the last day Defendant worked on the property.



47. On or about October 2009, Plaintiffs made four demands for receipts to Defendant. No additional receipts were provided, and no phone calls made to Defendant were returned.



48. On October 30, 2009, the plumbing inspector did not pass the plumbing "ruff- in” due to a faulty main drain, a gas leak, and the pea trap for the upstairs sink drain. Seven inspections had been called in by Defendant, but none of them had passed. Plaintiffs had paid for the pea trap to be changed six different times by Defendant in addition to the seventh time in order for it to pass inspection. "David” at Fix It Plumbing advised Plaintiffs he was owed $350.00 for all of the call ins for inspections. He had received none of the $2,500.00 advanced to Defendant on April 30, 2009, for plumbing.



49. Between December 2008 and October 2009, Defendant charged approximately $24,000.00 for materials to the Plaintiffs' bank card. No receipts for any of these purchases were turned over to the Plaintiffs, although they were requested on numerous occasions.



50. Defendant buried wood scraps and other items on Plaintiffs' property with the skid steer. According to the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, Plaintiffs' ground water well system is now in jeopardy.



51. As of Defendant's last day on the job site, the budget for the home construction was at $190,980.00, and the construction project was far from complete.



52. Of the amount paid out by Plaintiffs, only approximately $5,000.00 in receipts have been provided to them by Defendant.



53. Since the Defendant's last day on the job site, Plaintiffs have spent in excess of $62,048.00 to complete jobs Defendant had not completed and to repair or remodel the jobs that were insufficient due to faulty workmanship, supervision over the laborers, and the incorrect use of the guidelines of the official plans.



54. During the construction of the house and while under the supervision of Defendant, several of Plaintiffs' tools, sheet rock, and trim and baseboards were taken from the property. Other than Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs' uncle, Defendant was the only other individual with keys to the property during time this property was stolen.



55. As of April 2010, it cost approximately $60,000.00 to complete the construction of Plaintiffs' house.



FIRST CLAIM (IN CONTRACT) - BREACH OF CONTRACT



Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate all of the foregoing allegations and further state:



56. The defects in the design, construction, materials, and workmanship of the home constitute a material breach of the Contract for Home Construction and subsequent Agreement for General Contract, including but not limited to the covenant to erect and build the home in accordance with the standards of construction and in accordance with the plans and specifications.



57. The defects are material, and Plaintiffs are entitled to recover all damages as will compensate Plaintiffs for their losses sustained by way of Defendant's breach, including, but not limited to, costs of repair and actual damages in excess of $152,304.00, plus attorney fees and all costs of this action.



SECOND CLAIM - BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES



Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate all of the foregoing allegations and further allege and state:



58. The defects in the construction, materials, design, and workmanship of the home constitute a material breach of the implied warranties of performance in a workmanlike manner, of merchantability, and fitness for occupancy and habitability.



59. As a result of the breach of the implied warranties by Defendant, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover such damages as will compensate Plaintiffs for their losses sustained by way of Defendant's breach, including, but not limited to, costs to repair and actual damages in money in excess of the amount required for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1332 of Title 28 of the United States Code, plus attorney fees and all costs of this action.



THIRD CLAIM - NEGLIGENCE AND NEGLIGENCE PER SE



Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth above and further allege and state:



60. Defendant owed Plaintiffs a duty to design and construct the home in a workmanlike manner, which he has failed to do. (See Exhibit "C”, the affidavit of expert engineer, J. W. Dansby, attached hereto pursuant to 120.S. §19A.)



61. Defendant owed Plaintiffs a duty to design and construct their home in conformity with the plans and specifications for the home.



62. Defendant owed Plaintiffs a duty to design and construct the home in conformity with the applicable building codes of the City of Oklahoma City.



63. Defendant owed Plaintiffs a duty to design and construct their home free of material defects.



64. Defendant owed Plaintiffs a duty to design and construct their home with care, skill, reasonable expediency, and faithfulness.



65. Defendant breached said duties by failing to construct the home (a) in a workmanlike manner; (b) free of material defects; (c) with care, skill, reasonable expediency, and faithfulness; (d) in conformity with the plans and specifications for the home; and (e) in conformity with the applicable building codes of the City of Oklahoma City.



66. The negligence of Defendant is the proximate cause of the defects in the home. Defendant's violation of statute and city ordinances in regard to the design and construction of the home constitutes negligence per se.



67. As a result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover such damages as will compensate Plaintiffs for their losses, including, but not limited to, costs of repair and actual damages in money in excess of the amount required for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1332 of Title 28 of the United States Code, plus attorney fees and all costs of this action.



FOUTH CLAIM - CONVERSION OF PERSONAL PROPERTY



Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth above and further allege and state:



68. During the construction of the house and while under the supervision of

Defendant, several of Plaintiffs' tools, sheet rock, and trim and baseboards were taken from the property. Other than Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs' uncle, Defendant was the only other individual with keys to the property during time this property was stolen.



69. As a result of the conversion or taking of personal property by Defendant, or the Defendant allowing others to remove the property, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover such damages as will compensate Plaintiffs for their losses sustained by way of Defendant's conversion, including, but not limited to, costs of repair and/or replacement, and actual damages in money in excess of the amount required for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1332 of Title 28 of the United States Code, plus attorney fees and all costs of this action.



FIFTH CLAIM — REMOVAL OF LIEN



Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth above and further allege and state:



70. On January 8, 2010, Defendant filed a Mechanic's or Materialman's Lien against Plaintiffs for the sum of $40,000.00. The filing of this lien is fraudulent and unfounded as Plaintiffs have paid Defendant more than was owed to him by contract. Said lien has further hampered financing efforts of Plaintiffs and cost them a tax credit.



71. As a result of Defendant's filing of such lien, Plaintiffs request that the lien be removed and expunged from the record.



72. As a result of Defendant's filing of such lien, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover such damages as will compensate Plaintiffs for their losses, including, but not limited to, costs of repair, actual damages, libel, and defamation of character in money in excess of the amount required for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1332 of Title 28 of the United States Code, plus attorney fees and all costs of this action.



WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiffs pray for judgment consistent with the allegations of their Petition, plus interest, costs and reasonable attorney fees, and for such other legal and equitable relief as the Plaintiffs may be entitled.



Defendants appeared, answered and counterclaimed as follows:



1. As to Paragraph One (1) of Plaintiffs' Petition, Defendant has no knowledge of where the Plaintiffs' reside.



2. As to Paragraph Two (2) of Plaintiffs' Petition, Defendant has no knowledge of whether or not the Plaintiffs own the property as stated.



3. Defendant admits Paragraph Three (3) of Plaintiffs' Petition.



4. Defendant admits Paragraph Four (4) of Plaintiffs' Petition.



5. Defendant admits Paragraph Five (5) of Plaintiffs' Petition.



6. As to General Allegation Paragraph One (1) of Plaintiffs' Petition, Defendant partially admits the paragraph, as the discussion did occur, and partially denies the allegation as the discussion referred to in that paragraph occurred in August 2008.



7. Defendant admits General Allegation Paragraph Two (2) of Plaintiffs' Petition.



8. Defendant admits General Allegation Paragraph Three (3) of Plaintiffs' Petition.



9. Defendant denies General Allegation Paragraph Four (4) of Plaintiffs' Petition and demands strict proof thereof.

10. Defendant has no knowledge of General Allegation Paragraph Five (5) of Plaintiffs' Petition and hereby denies allegations and demands strict proof thereof.



11. Defendant has no knowledge of General Allegation Paragraph Six (6) of Plaintiffs' Petition and hereby denies allegations and demands strict proof thereof.



12. As to Paragraph Seven (7) of Plaintiffs' Petition, "Exhibit B” attached to Plaintiffs' Petition is unsigned by either of the parties involved, and is therefore denied by the Defendant.



13. As to Paragraph Eight (8) of the Plaintiffs' Petition, Defendant admits the first sentence of that paragraph and denies the remainder of the allegations in the paragraph and demands strict proof thereof.



14. Defendant admits General Allegation Paragraph Nine (9) of Plaintiffs' Petition.



15. As to Paragraph Ten (10) of the Plaintiffs' Petition, Defendant admits the first sentence, and has no knowledge of what that amount was attributed to Defendant for, and demands strict proof thereof.



16. Defendant admits the first sentence of Plaintiffs' Petition General Allegation Paragraph Eleven (11) and denies the remainder of the allegations as the Defendant never informed the Plaintiffs that "it would be better to pay the laborers in cash as they did not want a paper trail and most did not have bank accounts.” Defendant's payments to these laborers were made by check.



17. Defendant denies the first sentence in General Allegation Paragraph Twelve (12) in Plaintiffs' Petition and demands strict proof thereof. As to the remainder of the allegations in the paragraph, Defendant denies in part and admits in part, in that Defendant advised that the plumbing "ruff-in” work would be $3,900.00 for workers and supplies, but would not be the total plumbing cost. Defendant denies sentence three and demands strict proof thereof.



18. Defendant denies General Allegation Paragraph Thirteen (13) of Plaintiffs' Petition as Plaintiff Chris Turner filled out and executed a credit application to Sooner Concrete on or about January 3, 2009 which was delivered to the merchant by the Defendant.



19. Defendant denies General Allegation Paragraph Fourteen (14) of Plaintiffs' Petition and demands strict proof thereof.



20. Defendant denies General Allegation Paragraph Fifteen (15) of Plaintiffs' Petition and demands strict proof thereof.



21. Defendant denies General Allegation Paragraph Sixteen (16) of Plaintiffs' Petition and demands strict proof thereof.



22. Defendant denies General Allegation Paragraph Seventeen (17) of Plaintiffs' Petition and demands strict proof thereof.



23. Defendant denies General Allegation Paragraph Eighteen (18) of Plaintiffs' Petition and demands strict proof thereof.



24. Defendant denies General Allegation Paragraph Nineteen (19) of Plaintiffs' Petition and demands strict proof thereof.



25. Defendant denies General Allegation Paragraph Twenty (20) of Plaintiffs' Petition and demands strict proof thereof.



26. Defendant denies General Allegation Paragraph Twenty-One (21) of Plaintiffs' Petition and demands strict proof thereof.



27. Defendant denies General Allegation Paragraph Twenty-Two (22) of Plaintiffs' Petition and demands strict proof thereof.



28. Defendant denies General Allegation Paragraph Twenty-Three (23) of Plaintiffs' Petition and demands strict proof thereof.



29. Defendant denies General Allegation Paragraph Twenty-Four (24) of Plaintiffs' Petition and demands strict proof thereof.



30. Defendant denies General Allegation Paragraph Twenty-Five (25) of Plaintiffs' Petition and demands strict proof thereof.



31. Defendant admits General Allegation Paragraph Twenty-Six (26) of Plaintiffs' Petition.



32. Defendant partially admits General Allegation Paragraph Twenty-Seven (27) of Plaintiffs' Petition, in that he did rent a skid steer tractor from United Rentals, and denies that it was only on the property for five (5) weeks, as he believes it was on the property from approximately December 2008 through June 2009. Defendant denies all other allegations listed and demands strict proof thereoE



33. Defendant denies General Allegation Paragraph Twenty-Eight (28) of Plaintiffs' Petition and demands strict proof thereof.



34. Defendant denies General Allegation Paragraph Twenty-Nine (29) of Plaintiffs' Petition and demands strict proof thereof.



35. Defendant denies General Allegation Paragraph Thirty (30) of Plaintiffs' Petition and demands strict proof thereof.



36. Defendant denies General Allegation Paragraph Thirty-One (31) of Plaintiffs' Petition and demands strict proof thereof.



37. Defendant has no knowledge and therefore denies General Allegation Paragraph Thirty-Two (32) of the Plaintiffs' Petition and demands strict proof thereof



38. Defendant denies General Allegation Paragraph Thirty-Three (33) of Plaintiffs' Petition and demands strict proof thereof.



39. Defendant denies General Allegation Paragraph Thirty-Four (34) of Plaintiffs' Petition and demands strict proof thereof



40. Defendant denies General Allegation Paragraph Thirty-Five (35) of Plaintiffs' Petition and demands strict proof thereof



41. Defendant denies General Allegation Paragraph Thirty-Six (36) of Plaintiffs' Petition and demands strict proof thereof.



42. Defendant denies General Allegation Paragraph Thirty-Seven (37) of Plaintiffs' Petition and demands strict proof thereof



43. Defendant denies General Allegation Paragraph Thirty-Eight (38) of Plaintiffs' Petition and demands strict proof thereof



44. Defendant denies General Allegation Paragraph Thirty-Nine (39) of Plaintiffs' Petition and demands strict proof thereof.



45. Defendant denies in part and admits in part General Allegation Paragraph Forty (40) of Plaintiffs' Petition in that Defendant did request a loan from the Plaintiffs, but denies the remainder of the allegations and demands strict proof thereof.



46. Defendant denies the first sentence of General Allegation Paragraph Forty-One (41) of Plaintiffs' Petition, and admits the remainder of the allegations in this paragraph.



47. Defendant denies General Allegation Paragraph Forty-Two (42) of Plaintiffs' Petition and demands strict proof thereof.



48. Defendant denies General Allegation Paragraph Forty-Three (43) of Plaintiffs' Petition and demands strict proof thereof



49. Defendant admits General Allegation Paragraph Forty-Four (44) of Plaintiffs' Petition.



50. Defendant has no knowledge of General Allegation Paragraph Forty-Five (45) of Plaintiffs' Petition and therefore denies and demands strict proof thereof.



51. Defendant admits the first sentence of General Allegation Paragraph Forty-Six (46) of Plaintiffs' Petition and denies the remainder of the allegations and demands strict proof thereof



52. Defendant denies General Allegation Paragraph Forty-Seven (47) of Plaintiffs' Petition and demands strict proof thereof.



53. Defendant lacks knowledge of General Allegation Paragraph Forty-Eight (48) and therefore denies and demands strict proof thereof.



54. Defendant has no knowledge as to the first sentence of General Allegation Paragraph Forty-Nine (49) and therefore denies and demands strict proof thereof Defendant denies the second sentence of that paragraph and demands strict proof thereof.



55. Defendant admits General Allegation Paragraph Fifty (50) of the Plaintiffs' Petition, but further states that the actions were taken in compliance with the orders of the Plaintiffs.



56. Defendant has no knowledge as to General Allegation Paragraph Fifty-One (51) of the Plaintiffs' Petition and therefore denies and demands strict proof thereof.



57. Defendant denies General Allegation Paragraph Fifty-Two (52) of Plaintiffs' Petition and demands strict proof thereof.



58. Defendant has no knowledge as to General Allegation Paragraph Fifty-Three (53) of the Plaintiffs' Petition and therefore denies and demands strict proof thereof.



59. Defendant denies General Allegation Paragraph Fifty-Four (54) of Plaintiffs' Petition and demands strict proof thereof.



60. Defendant has no knowledge as to General Allegation Paragraph Fifty-Five (55) of the Plaintiffs' Petition and therefore denies and demands strict proof thereof



61. Defendant denies General Allegation Paragraph Fifty-Six (56) of Plaintiffs' Petition and demands strict proof thereof.



62. Defendant denies General Allegation Paragraph Fifty-Seven (57) of Plaintiffs' Petition and demands strict proof thereof.



63. Defendant denies General Allegation Paragraph Fifty-Eight (58) of Plaintiffs' Petition and demands strict proof thereof.



64. Defendant denies General Allegation Paragraph Fifty-Nine (59) of Plaintiffs' Petition and demands strict proof thereof



65. Defendant denies General Allegation Paragraph Sixty (60) of Plaintiffs' Petition and demands strict proof thereof



66. Defendant denies General Allegation Paragraph Sixty-One (61) of Plaintiffs' Petition and demands strict proof thereof



67. Defendant admits General Allegation Paragraph Sixty-Two (62) of Plaintiffs' Petition.



68. Defendant admits General Allegation Paragraph Sixty-Three (63) of Plaintiffs' Petition.



69. Defendant admits General Allegation Paragraph Sixty-Four (64) of Plaintiffs' Petition.



70. Defendant denies General Allegation Paragraph Sixty-Five (65) of Plaintiffs' Petition and demands strict proof thereof.



71. Defendant denies General Allegation Paragraph Sixty-Six (66) of Plaintiffs' Petition and demands strict proof thereof.



72. Defendant denies General Allegation Paragraph Sixty-Seven (67) of Plaintiffs' Petition and demands strict proof thereof.



73. Defendant denies General Allegation Paragraph Sixty-Eight (68) of Plaintiffs' Petition and demands strict proof thereof.



74. Defendant denies General Allegation Paragraph Sixty-Nine (69) of Plaintiffs' Petition and demands sttict proof thereof.



75. Defendants admits in part and denies in part General Allegation Paragraph Seventy (70) of Plaintiffs' Petition, in that he did file a Mechanic's/Materialman's Lien against the Plaintiffs, but denies that the lien was fraudulent and unfounded.



76. Defendant denies General Allegation Paragraph Seventy-One (71) of Plaintiffs' Petition and demands strict proof thereof.



77. Defendant denies General Allegation Paragraph Seventy-Two (72) of Plaintiffs' Petition and demands strict proof thereof.



78. The Defendant performed work in a workmanlike manner for the Plaintiffs and was not compensated for said work., for which he should be compensated in an amount in excess of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00).



79. That Defendant is entitled to punitive damages from the Plaintiffs' due to the fraudulent and dishonest statements in the Plaintiffs' Petition in an amount in excess of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00).



80. That due to the Plaintiffs' fraudulent claims in the Petition against the Defendant, Defendant is entitled to attorney fees and costs incurred herein.



WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that the Plaintiffs be denied judgment against the Defendant and respectfully requests that this Court compensate the Defendant for compensatory damages as stated above in excess of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) and punitive damages as stated above in excess of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) and for such other relief to which the Defendant may be entitled.

Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs in the amount of $301,172.23 including $100,390.78 in punitive damages.



On the 27th day of August, 2012, this matter comes on for consideration by the Court on Plaintiffs Chris Turner’s and Ronda Turner’s “Second Motion for Default Judgment or in the alternative Motion to Compel and Brief In Support,” filed June 6, 2012, and “Supplement to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment filed on June 6, 2012,” which was filed on August 8, 2012.

This Court having considered the totality of the circumstances of this case, reviewed the briefs on file, taken notice of oral arguments, heard testimony, received evidence and otherwise being advised in the premises, does hereby GRANT Plaintiffs’ Motion for Judgment.



Furthermore, this Court enters JUDGMENT for all Plaintiffs jointly and severally against all Defendants pursuant to each and every claim stated in Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Petition, including Plaintiffs’ prayers for:



1. Damages;



2. Punitive Damages;



3. Equitable Relief



4. Pre-judgment Interest;



5. Costs; and



6. Reasonable Attorney Fees.



Pursuant to OkIa. Stat tit. 12 § 688, this Court shall hold a hearing to take evidence, an account, proof of the facts and/or the assessment of the damages and other prayed for relief and will thereafter award specific damages and other prayed for relief.