CJ-2026-00007 - TREVOR LISLE v. SCOTT CAMPBELL

What's This Case About?

Let’s be real: when you hear “cattle rustling,” you probably think of dusty Westerns, masked outlaws on horseback, and sheriffs with six-shooters. But in 2025, the modern-day cow heist looks a lot more like a spreadsheet gone rogue — and in Dewey County, Oklahoma, one rancher is alleging his neighbor didn’t just steal a few head of cattle… he allegedly stole 63 cows and 24 calves, pocketed rent payments for animals that didn’t exist, and then had the gall to text apology like he’d forgotten to return a borrowed lawnmower. This isn’t just a case of missing livestock — this is a full-blown bovine betrayal, complete with billing fraud, shady sales, and a paper trail that reads like a country-western soap opera.

Meet Trevor Lisle, a Dewey County rancher who runs a cow-calf operation — that’s rancher speak for “I raise baby cows so they can grow up to be dinner or breeding machines.” In October 2021, Trevor struck a deal with Scott Campbell, a man who lives clear over in McIntosh County (which, in Oklahoma terms, is like saying “he lives in another universe”). The arrangement? Scott would pasture Trevor’s herd — keep ‘em fed, watered, and out of trouble — in exchange for monthly rent. Simple enough. Ranchers do this all the time. It’s like Airbnb, but for cows, and instead of Wi-Fi and a Keurig, you get grass and barbed wire. Everyone wins. Or at least, that’s how it’s supposed to work.

But by April 2025, things started to smell funkier than a feedlot in July. Scott told Trevor one cow had died — sad, but not unheard of. That left 69. Then three bulls were added, bringing the total to 72. No red flags yet. But then came the billing: from May through October, Scott invoiced Trevor every month for 72 head of cattle. That’s six months of rent — cold, hard cash — for a full herd. Trevor paid up, trusting that Scott was doing his job. After all, this wasn’t some shady Craigslist deal. This was a handshake agreement between two men in the same business. Or so Trevor thought.

Then came November 4, 2025 — pickup day. Trevor sent trucks to haul the herd back to Dewey County, where they belonged. But before the trailers even left the property, Scott called. And here’s where it gets wild. He admitted — via text message, no less — that he had already sold 20 calves and 6 cows. Not “lost,” not “they wandered off,” not “predator attack.” Sold. As in, took to market, cashed a check, spent the money. And then, in the same breath, claimed the rest were on their way. Trevor, now sweating through his boots, waited for the trucks to arrive. When they did? Only 50 cows showed up. Not 63. Not 72. Fifty. And only 25 calves — meaning 24 more were unaccounted for. Scott’s excuse? “Oh, the rest died.” All of them. Suddenly. Mysteriously. Conveniently.

Trevor wasn’t buying it. He did the math: he’d paid rent for 72 cattle for six months, but only got back a fraction of what he was owed. And now Scott was claiming mass bovine extinction like it was a natural disaster? On information and belief — legal speak for “we think you’re lying through your teeth” — Trevor alleges Scott didn’t just sell some of the cattle. He sold 19 cows and 44 calves, kept the money, and then charged rent for animals he no longer had. That’s not poor herd management. That’s a scam. A cow scam. And it’s why Trevor is now suing Scott on four separate legal fronts.

First up: Breach of Contract. Simple idea — you agreed to do a thing, you didn’t do it, now you owe money. Trevor says he held up his end: paid every invoice, trusted Scott to care for the herd. Scott, meanwhile, allegedly failed to perform his duties — either by losing, selling, or straight-up misplacing nearly half the herd. That’s a breach, plain and simple.

Then comes Unjust Enrichment — a fancy way of saying “you can’t profit from your own wrongdoing.” Trevor argues Scott took money for pasture rent on cattle that weren’t even there. That’s like charging someone for a hotel room they never stayed in, then selling the furniture inside. Scott allegedly took thousands in rent for phantom cows, plus the proceeds from selling Trevor’s actual livestock. The law says you can’t keep that kind of ill-gotten gain — hence, the claim.

Next: Fraud and Deceit. This one’s spicy. Trevor says Scott knew the representations were false — that he didn’t have 72 head of cattle — but kept billing anyway, intentionally deceiving Trevor to keep the cash flowing. That’s not just a broken contract. That’s lying on purpose to steal money. And if proven, it opens the door to punitive damages — punishment money, not just compensation.

Finally, Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage — which sounds like law school gibberish, but really just means: “You screwed up my chance to make money.” Those missing cows and calves? They weren’t just assets. They were future income — calves that could be sold, cows that could breed, a whole economic pipeline derailed by Scott’s actions. By allegedly selling or withholding them, Scott didn’t just take property — he torpedoed Trevor’s business prospects.

So what does Trevor want? A cool $179,500. Is that a lot? For most of us, yes — that’s a down payment on a mansion or a lifetime supply of cowboy boots. But in cattle country, it’s not outrageous. We’re talking about 63 cows and 24 calves — prime breeding stock. Depending on the market, a single cow can go for $1,500 to $2,000. Calves add up fast. And that doesn’t include lost breeding potential, lost sales, or the cost of rebuilding a herd from scratch. Factor in attorney fees, emotional distress (okay, maybe not legally, but come on), and the sheer audacity of the scam? $179,500 starts to look like a bargain.

Now, here’s our take: the most absurd part isn’t even the theft. It’s the text message. “Hey, I sold some of your cows. My bad. The rest are coming.” That’s not remorse. That’s audacity. It’s like robbing a bank and sending a thank-you note. And the rent? Charging for cattle that were already sold? That’s not just greed — that’s commitment to the con. We’ve seen petty disputes over fence lines, chickens, and driveway gravel. But this? This is organized crime on a hay bale budget.

Are we rooting for Trevor? Absolutely. Ranchers run on trust. You don’t call your neighbor to say, “Hey, I’m borrowing your tractor,” and then sell it to a guy in Tulsa. Same goes for cows. If this industry collapses into a free-for-all of “he said, she said” over livestock counts, who’s left to run the ranches? But also — let’s pour one out for the text. That single act of brazen, digital shamelessness is the true villain here. Because in the end, it’s not just about the cows. It’s about the fact that Scott thought he could get away with it — and thought a text message would be enough to smooth it over.

We’re entertainers, not lawyers. But if we were judges? We’d demand Scott return every missing cow — or at least explain, under oath, how 63 of them just… died. And if he says “predators,” we’re calling in a forensic veterinarian. Because in Oklahoma, you don’t mess with a man’s herd. And you definitely don’t bill him for it.

Case Overview

$179,500 Demand Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Anthony S. Moore, Justin E. Tharp

CHRISTENSEN LAW GROUP, P.L.L.C.

Relief Sought

$179,500 Monetary

Plaintiffs

TREVOR LISLE individual
Rep: Anthony S. Moore, Justin E. Tharp

Defendants

SCOTT CAMPBELL individual

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	BREACH OF CONTRACT	Plaintiff alleges Defendant failed to perform duties under a contract for caring for Plaintiff's cow herd
2	UNJUST ENRICHMENT	Plaintiff alleges Defendant took money from Plaintiff for cattle rent that were not on the property and sold Plaintiff's cattle and calves for personal gain
3	FRAUD/DECEIT	Plaintiff alleges Defendant made false representations about caring for Plaintiff's cattle and deceived Plaintiff into paying rent for non-existent cattle
4	TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE	Plaintiff alleges Defendant sold or stole 19 cows and 44 calves from Plaintiff, interfering with Plaintiff's ability to market and sell the cattle

Petition Text

1,229 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR DEWEY COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA TREVOR LISLE, v. SCOTT CAMPBELL Plaintiff, Defendant. PETITION COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Trevor Lisle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and for his causes of action, states as follows: PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE 1. Plaintiff is an individual and resident of Dewey County, Oklahoma. 2. Defendant, Scott Campbell (hereinafter “Defendant”), is an individual and resident of McIntosh County, Oklahoma, and will be served at his last known address, 419417 E. 1080 Road, Checotah, Oklahoma 74426, or wherever found. 3. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant. 4. Venue is proper in Dewey County under 12 O.S. § 187 where Defendant conducted business within the county and the property and transactions at issue originated in Dewey County. GENERAL FACTS 5. Plaintiff is a rancher and operates a cow-calf operation. 6. Plaintiff contracted with Defendant on or about October 2021 to have cows and calves pastured in McIntosh County under the control and supervision of the Defendant. 7. In April 2025, Defendant advised Plaintiff that a cow had died, resulting in 69 cows total alive. 8. Three bulls were added to the herd, totaling 72 cows in the herd. 9. Defendant billed Plaintiff monthly for rent based on the total number of cows in the herd. 10. From May 2025 through October 2025, Defendant billed Plaintiff for 72 cows. 11. On or about November 4, 2025, as agreed between the parties, Plaintiff had trucks pick cows and calves up to be returned to Plaintiff's property in Dewey County. 12. While the trucks were in transit, Defendant called Plaintiff and advised Plaintiff that Defendant sold 20 calves and 6 cows, which he admitted via text his actions were wrong, but that the remaining cows and calves were being returned to Plaintiff, which should have resulted in 63 cows remaining based on the rent numbers paid by Plaintiff from May through October. 13. When the trucks arrived at Plaintiff's property, only 50 cows had been returned, leaving 13 additional cows unaccounted for. 14. Additionally, only 25 calves were returned, leaving approximately 24 additional calves unaccounted for. 15. The Defendant, when confronted, advised Plaintiff that the remaining cows had all died. 16. On information and belief, Defendant sold or kept these additional cows and calves. 17. On November 6, 2025, Plaintiff sent a demand letter to Defendant for the loss of 19 cows and 44 calves in total. 18. Said demand letter was served on Defendant by process server on November 13, 2025. 19. As of the date of this filing, Defendant has failed to respond. 20. Defendant has failed to perform his duties under the contract and multiple attempts at communication from Plaintiff have been ignored. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (BREACH OF CONTRACT) Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation of facts or claims set forth in paragraphs 1 through 20, and further alleges as follows: 21. Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a contract for Defendant to care for Plaintiff’s cow herd. 22. All parties were capable of contracting and consented to the agreement. 23. The purpose of the contract was lawful and sufficient cause and consideration were given. 24. Plaintiff relied on the contract with Defendant to his detriment. 25. Plaintiff substantially performed all actions required of the contract including payment of all invoices. 26. Defendant has failed to perform his obligations under the contract. 27. Said failure constitutes a breach of contract for which Plaintiff has suffered actual economic loss, harm, and damage as described above. 28. Plaintiff has incurred costs and has been damaged by an unreasonable delay in building due to the actions and/or inaction of Defendant. 29. Defendant has failed to comply with the terms of the agreement. 30. As a direct result of Defendant’s breach, Plaintiff has been harmed. 31. As a result of Defendant’s breach, Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages, together with pre- and post-judgement interest, costs, and reasonable attorney’s fees. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays for judgement on their First Cause of Action against Defendant for breach of contract in an amount in excess of $179,500.00, together with punitive damages, together with the Plaintiff's costs, attorney fees, and such other relief as may be just and equitable. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (UNJUST ENRICHMENT) The Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation of facts or claims set forth in paragraphs 1 through 31, and further alleges as follows: 32. On information and belief, Defendant has taken money from Plaintiff for cattle rent that were not on the property, and further, has sold cattle and calves that were the property of the Plaintiff and has used that money for Defendant's personal gain. 33. Defendant is in possession of or has spent monies paid by Plaintiff for rental of pasture for cattle that were previously sold by Defendant. 34. Defendant is further in possession or has spent monies acquired by the sale of Plaintiff’s cattle and calves. 35. These actions have resulted in a financial benefit to Defendant and to the detriment of Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays for judgement on their Second Cause of Action against Defendant for unjust enrichment in an amount in excess of $179,500.00, together with punitive damages, together with the Plaintiff's costs, attorney fees, and such other relief as may be just and equitable. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (FRAUD/DECEIT) The Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation of facts or claims set forth in paragraphs 1 through 35, and further alleges as follows: 36. Defendants represented from May through October that 72 cattle were present and Plaintiff paid rent to Defendant for 72 cattle. 37. Defendant represented to the Plaintiff that he was using due diligence and expertise to care for Plaintiff’s cattle. 38. The Plaintiff relied on the representations by Defendant. 39. The representations made by Defendant were false. 40. Defendant knew that said representations were false and made such positive representations in reckless disregard of the truth. 41. Defendant intended for the Plaintiff to rely on said representations in order for Defendant to obtain Plaintiff’s trust, money, and property. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays for judgement on their Third Cause of Action against Defendants for fraud and deceit in an amount in excess of $179,500.00, together with punitive damages, together with the Plaintiff’s costs, attorney fees, and such other relief as may be just and equitable. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE) The Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation of facts or claims set forth in paragraphs 1 through 41, and further alleges as follows: 42. Defendant sold or stole 19 cows and 44 calves from Plaintiff. 43. Defendant knew or should have known that his actions would jeopardize, bar, or foreclose Plaintiff from enjoying the bargained for benefits and ability to market said cattle and calves or personal or business purposes. 44. Defendants intentionally interfered with Plaintiff's opportunity to enjoy the benefits and ability to utilize the sale of these cattle and calves for both personal and professional goals. 45. Plaintiff has lost income and prospective economic advantages and will continue to further lose income and economic advantages as a result of Defendant’s wrongful actions. 46. Defendant’s actions were neither justified, privileged, nor excusable, and, therefore, constitute tortious interference. 47. As a result of the Defendant’s tortious interference with Plaintiff’s prospective economic advantage, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount in excess of $179,500.00. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays for judgement on their Fourth Cause of Action against Defendants for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage in an amount in excess of $179,500.00, together with punitive damages, together with the Plaintiff’s costs, attorney fees, and such other relief as may be just and equitable. Respectfully submitted, Anthony S. Moore (OBA #22429) Justin E. Tharp (OBA #34298) CHRISTENSEN LAW GROUP, P.L.L.C. Post Office Box 821 Clinton, Oklahoma 73601 Telephone: (405) 232-2020 Facsimile: (405) 236-1012 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff