CJ-2026-1046 - Southwood Financial, LLC as Trust Manager for Southwood Financial Trust I v. Randall K. Shook

What's This Case About?

Let’s get one thing straight: nobody likes being chased by debt collectors. But when a company called Southwood Financial LLC sues a guy named Randall K. Shook for $16,152.60 over a student loan he allegedly never paid—after, presumably, buying that debt for pennies on the dollar like some kind of financial vulture at a bankruptcy yard sale—well, now we’re in entertainment territory.

Picture this: Randall, a regular guy living at a modest address in Tulsa (1411 S Quebec Ave, if you're taking notes), once upon a time took out a student loan. The paperwork says it was with Sallie Mae Bank—yes, that Sallie Mae, the name that haunts the dreams of millions of college grads who now work at dog parks and owe more than their cars are worth. He signed a promissory note, got the money, presumably went to school, and then… life happened. Maybe he graduated. Maybe he didn’t. Maybe he’s working three jobs and still can’t catch a break. The filing doesn’t say. But what it does say is that Randall didn’t pay. And now, years later, a shadowy financial entity called Southwood Financial, LLC—acting as “Trust Manager” for “Southwood Financial Trust I,” which sounds less like a real company and more like a shell corporation in a Succession spin-off—has swooped in, claiming ownership of that old debt, and is demanding every last penny.

Who even are these people? On one side, you’ve got Randall K. Shook, an individual with no attorney listed, which means he’s likely going it alone against the legal machine. On the other, you’ve got Southwood Financial LLC, a business entity so opaque that even its own name includes a nested clause—as Trust Manager for Southwood Financial Trust I—like it’s trying to sound important by being unnecessarily complicated. Representing them is the Rutledge Law Firm, P.C., based in Houston (not Tulsa), led by a man named W. “Will” Rutledge, Esq., who may or may not wear cowboy boots in court but definitely sends demand letters like it’s his cardio. This isn’t a face-to-face dispute. This is debt collection by proxy, a game of financial telephone where the original lender is long gone, and now some third-party trust is waving a piece of paper and saying, “Pay up, Randall, or we’ll take you to court.” Which, spoiler alert: they did.

So what actually happened? Well, according to the petition filed on September 1, 2022, Randall took out a student loan from Sallie Mae (account number ending in 33900, for those keeping score) and signed a promissory note—a fancy way of saying “I promise to pay this back.” He got the money, presumably used it for tuition or books or ramen or all three, but then stopped making payments. No explanation given. No “my dog died” clause invoked. Just… radio silence. Southwood Financial, claiming to be the “successor-in-interest” (lawyer-speak for “we now own this debt”), says Randall is in “complete default,” meaning he hasn’t paid a dime toward the principal or the interest. They’re now suing him for $16,152.60—yes, down to the penny, because nothing says “we care about accuracy” like demanding 60 cents in a $16k lawsuit.

The legal claims? Oh, they came prepared. First, breach of promissory note—basically, “you signed a promise to pay, and you didn’t.” Second, breach of contract—same idea, just dressed up in different legal pajamas. And third, the real pièce de résistance: unjust enrichment. That’s the one where they argue, “Hey, Randall, you got a benefit (an education, theoretically), and it’s unfair for you to keep that benefit without paying for it.” It’s the legal equivalent of your mom saying, “I bought you a car, and now you’re not speaking to me? That’s not how this works.”

Now, let’s talk about what they want. $16,152.60. Is that a lot? In the world of student debt, it’s practically pocket change. The average student loan balance in the U.S. is over $37,000. But for one individual in Tulsa, Oklahoma, it’s still a very real sum. That’s a car down payment. That’s a year of rent. That’s a full IVF cycle, if you’re into that kind of thing. And Southwood isn’t just asking for the principal—they want everything: court costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorney’s fees. Translation: if Randall loses, he could end up owing even more than he already does. And since the firm is based in Texas, we can only assume Will Rutledge is billing by the hour, and every time he types “WHEREFORE,” a clock ticks.

Here’s the absurd part: Southwood Financial Trust I isn’t the school. They didn’t teach Randall anything. They didn’t hand him a diploma or a lab coat or a participation trophy. They bought a debt. They’re not a lender—they’re a debt investor. They’re in the business of purchasing old obligations, then suing people to collect. It’s not personal. It’s portfolio management. Randall’s financial struggle is just a line item on someone’s spreadsheet. And yet, they’re suing him in state court—not federal, not arbitration—demanding judgment like he stole their grandmother’s heirloom china.

We’re not saying Randall doesn’t owe the money. He probably does. The promissory note is real. The loan was disbursed. He benefited from it. But the theatricality of it all—the trust structure, the Texas law firm filing in Tulsa County, the triple-layered legal claims for a debt that may have been purchased for $3,000—feels less like justice and more like financial theater. It’s like watching a corporate version of Storage Wars, where someone buys a defaulted loan at auction and then sues the original borrower like they’re reclaiming buried treasure.

And what about Randall? Where is he in all this? Silent, for now. No answer filed. No counterclaim. No “I was scammed by for-profit college” defense. Just a name on a docket, a number on a balance sheet. If he shows up, he’ll have to explain why he didn’t pay. If he doesn’t, Southwood wins by default. Either way, this case isn’t really about education. It’s about debt. About who owns it, who profits from it, and who gets dragged into court when the music stops.

Our take? We’re rooting for transparency. For a system where student debt doesn’t get sold like casino chips. For a world where “unjust enrichment” applies not just to borrowers who skip out on payments, but also to companies that profit from decades-old loans they had nothing to do with. And honestly? We wouldn’t mind if Randall showed up with a PowerPoint titled “Where Did My Education Go?” and made Will Rutledge explain why a Texas firm is suing a Tulsa man over a Sallie Mae loan from 2008. Now that’s the civil court drama we live for.

But until then, the gavel drops on $16,152.60. And somewhere, a trust manager smiles.

Case Overview

$16,153 Demand Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

W. 'Will' Rutledge

Rutledge Law Firm, P.C.

Relief Sought

$16,153 Monetary

Plaintiffs

Southwood Financial, LLC as Trust Manager for Southwood Financial Trust I business
Rep: Rutledge Law Firm, P.C.

Defendants

Randall K. Shook individual

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	breach of promissory note	Defendant failed to pay $16,152.60 on a student loan
2	breach of contract	Defendant breached a contract and failed to make payments
3	unjust enrichment	Defendant received benefits unjustly and should make restitution

Petition Text

684 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA SOUTHWOOD FINANCIAL LLC AS ) TRUST MANAGER FOR ) CJ-2026-01046 SOUTHWOOD FINANCIAL TRUST 1 ) Plaintiff. ) vs. ) RANDALL K SHOOK ) Case No. Defendant. ) PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION COMES NOW Plaintiff, SOUTHWOOD FINANCIAL, LLC AS TRUST MANAGER FOR SOUTHWOOD FINANCIAL TRUST I ("Plaintiff"), and for its causes of action against Defendant, RANDALL K SHOOK states and alleges as follows: Parties 1. SOUTHWOOD FINANCIAL, LLC As Trust Manager for SOUTHWOOD FINANCIAL TRUST I is the successor-in-interest, and owner and beneficiary of all claims related to the account opened by Defendants. 2. The Defendant, RANDALL K SHOOK (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant" or "Borrower") are individuals. Defendant RANDALL K SHOOK may be served at the following address, or wherever the Defendant may be found: 1411 S QUEBEC AVE TULSA OK 74112-6125. Jurisdiction & Venue 3. This Court has general and original jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims, including its claims for breach of promissory note, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. Furthermore, Plaintiff has sustained damages and other losses in excess of the amount required to invoke this Court's jurisdiction. 4. Venue is proper in this county pursuant to Oklahoma law because it is: (1) where Defendant resides; (2) where the statement of account, contract, promissory note or other instrument of indebtedness originated; (3) where the Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction; and (4) where many acts giving rise to this cause of action occurred. 12 OK Stat § 142. 5. All conditions precedent to instituting this action have occurred, been performed, were waived or have otherwise been satisfied. Breach of Promissory Note 6. Defendant executed a Promissory Note ("the Agreement") with Sallie Mae Bank under Account No. ending in ************33900 which resulted in the disbursement of educational loan funds. Defendant, RANDALL K SHOOK was the borrower. Defendant executed the Agreement and are liable under the terms of the Agreement. Plaintiff is the successor in interest and is entitled to receive all money under its terms. Defendant is obligated to make payments on the account as described in the Promissory Note. Defendant has failed and refused, and continued to fail and refuse, to pay the amounts due under the terms of the parties' Agreement. Plaintiff has and does declare the full indebtedness under the Agreement to be immediately due, owing and unpaid. The total due under the terms of the Agreement is $16,152.60. 7. Defendant has not paid the principal amount nor the accrued interest at any time and is in complete default of the terms of the promissory note. 8. Plaintiff declares all unpaid principal and accrued interest under the Promissory Note to be immediately due and payable. 9. The Note provides that Plaintiff shall be entitled to recover its reasonable costs and expenses of collection. Breach of Contract 10. Paragraphs 1-9 are incorporated by reference. 11. Alternatively, Defendant entered into a contract. 12. Plaintiff and the original creditor fully performed under the contact, but Defendant breached the contract by failing to make payments as agreed. 13. Defendant's breach caused Plaintiff to charge off the entire balance due as an economic loss. Unjust Enrichment 14. Paragraphs 1 through 13 are incorporated by reference. 15. Defendant knowingly and willingly accepted and received monies and/or benefits unjustly and should make restitution for those monies and/or benefits. 16. Defendant have received an unfair benefit to the detriment of Plaintiff by the refusal to repay what is owed. Equity requires that Defendant not retain the benefit of these sums owed to Plaintiff. Further, it would be unconscionable for Defendant to retain the monies and/or benefits obtained from Plaintiff. 17. Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against Defendant to recover the value of the benefit conferred, interest costs and attorney fees. Prayer For Relief WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Honorable Court grant judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant for the following: a. The balance due in the amount of $16,152.60; b. all court costs; c. post-judgment and pre-judgment interest as permitted by law and/or contract; d. reasonable and necessary attorney's fees; and e. such other relief plaintiff may be entitled to at law or equity. Respectfully submitted, Rutledge Law Firm, P.C. By: [signature] W. "Will" Rutledge, OBA #36346 2603 Augusta Drive Suite #500 Houston, Texas 77057 833-856-4700 832-843-0699 facsimile [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF