CJ-2026-00015 - Honor Heights Development Group, LLC v. NKX Services, LLC and Occupants of 114097 HWY. 69

What's This Case About?

Let’s get one thing straight: this isn’t a story about a missed rent payment. This is a story about a $75,000 tantrum thrown over a highway-side property in rural Oklahoma, where a landlord is suing a tenant for not just unpaid rent, but also for personal taxes—a phrase so bizarre it sounds like someone misheard “property taxes” while dozing off during a Zoom call. And yes, you read that right—personal taxes. As in, did the tenant forget to file their 1040, and now the landlord’s holding the lease hostage? We’re not sure. But we are here for it.

So who are these people? On one side, we’ve got Honor Heights Development Group, LLC—a name that sounds like a mid-tier real estate firm from a made-for-TV movie about suburban gentrification. They own a commercial property on Highway 69 in Eufaula, Oklahoma, which, if you’re not familiar, is the kind of place where the speed limit drops because a cow might wander into the road. Honor Heights is represented by Wesley J. Cherry (yes, really), a lawyer whose firm literally calls itself Foundation Law, P.L.L.C., which makes us wonder if they specialize in property disputes or home renovations. On the other side? NKX Services, LLC—possibly a one-person operation run out of a trailer, possibly a shell corporation for a failed side hustle, possibly an anagram for “Kicks N’ X-Boxes.” We don’t know much about them, except that their representative is one Nathan Means, which is either a real name or the most on-the-nose pseudonym since “John Smith.” And then there are the “Occupants”—a mysterious, unnamed collective, like a cult or a particularly stubborn family of raccoons, just chilling in the building, refusing to leave.

Now, the story. Back in February 2025—just a year before this lawsuit dropped like a flaming bag of drama—Honor Heights and NKX signed a commercial lease for that stretch of asphalt-adjacent real estate. All normal so far. The lease, according to the filing, required NKX to pay monthly rent and, oddly, “payments for property taxes, and payments for personal taxes.” Let that sink in. Personal taxes. Now, unless NKX was leasing not just a building but also Honor Heights’ accountant and Social Security number, this is either a typo of legendary proportions or someone invented a new form of landlord-tenant codependency. Either way, the lease was signed by corporate officers—Stephania Timothy for the landlord, Nathan Means for the tenant—and everyone presumably shook hands, maybe exchanged a “God bless” or two, and went on their way.

Fast forward to January 2026. Rent is due. Taxes are due. And NKX? Radio silent. According to the filing, they owe $10,750 in rent and $2,975.64 in property taxes—totaling just under $14,000 in actual, quantifiable debt. But here’s where things get spicy: instead of just demanding that money, Honor Heights is suing for over $75,000. That’s a fivefold markup. Did NKX also steal their Wi-Fi password and watch 300 hours of 4K streaming? Did they host a rave and leave behind a pet goat named Gerald? The filing doesn’t say. But it does reveal something even juicier: the lease had an arbitration clause. Honor Heights tried to settle this the civilized way—via arbitration, the grown-up version of “let’s talk this out before we lawyer up.” They sent a demand. NKX ghosted them. Deadline passed. Crickets. So now, we’re in court. Because apparently, in McIntosh County, Oklahoma, when you ignore a mediation request, the response is to file a nuclear-level lawsuit and demand a jury trial—like bringing a flamethrower to a campfire.

So why are they in court? Legally, Honor Heights is throwing the whole book at NKX: breach of contract (you didn’t pay, you broke the deal), unjust enrichment (you lived there for free, you got rich off our suffering), and forcible entry and detainer (get off our land, you squatters). Now, “forcible entry and detainer” sounds like a medieval siege tactic, but in landlord terms, it’s basically “eviction with extra steps.” It’s how landlords legally strong-arm tenants out of properties when they’ve overstayed their welcome. And in this case, Honor Heights claims NKX not only stopped paying but never fully vacated—leaving possessions behind and possibly letting random “occupants” (again, very vague) hang out like it’s a timeshare.

But here’s the real kicker: the damages. Honor Heights wants over $75,000—but only about $14,000 of that is actual rent and taxes owed. So where’s the rest coming from? Ah, the magical world of legal math. They’re bundling in attorney fees, “damages” from the breach, and the emotional toll of having to file a petition instead of just cashing a check. Is $75,000 a lot for this? Absolutely. For context, the median household income in McIntosh County is around $45,000. They’re suing for more than a year and a half of average local income over a commercial lease dispute that, on paper, involves less than two months of unpaid rent. It’s like suing someone for stealing your lawn gnome and then demanding the value of a small car.

And then there’s the jury trial demand. A jury for a landlord-tenant dispute? In a county with a population under 20,000? That’s like calling in the National Guard because your neighbor borrowed your hedge trimmer and didn’t return it. It’s excessive. It’s dramatic. It’s perfect.

So what’s our take? The most absurd part isn’t the “personal taxes” typo (though that’s a strong contender). It’s not even the $75,000 ask. It’s the sheer escalation. This could’ve been resolved with a sternly worded letter. Or a phone call. Or a single email that didn’t end in “WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED.” Instead, we’ve got a full-blown legal siege, complete with arbitration ghosting, mysterious occupants, and a demand for a jury of peers to decide whether NKX Services, LLC owes rent or is part of a larger anti-tax conspiracy. We’re not rooting for the landlord. We’re not rooting for the tenant. We’re rooting for the occupants. Whoever they are—be they rogue employees, confused travelers, or a secret society of highway philosophers—we hope they stay put, light a fire in the parking lot, and declare independence. Because if this case teaches us anything, it’s that when you mix commercial leases, vague tax clauses, and a lawyer named Cherry, the only thing that grows is the drama. And honestly? We’re here for it. We’re entertainers, not lawyers—but if this goes to trial, we’re bringing popcorn.

Case Overview

$77,500 Demand Jury Trial Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court of McIntosh County, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Wesley J. Cherry

FOUNDATION LAW, P.L.L.C.

Relief Sought

$74,500 Monetary

Injunctive Relief

Plaintiffs

Honor Heights Development Group, LLC business
Rep: Wesley J. Cherry, OBA #22851

Defendants

NKX Services, LLC and Occupants of 114097 HWY. 69 business|individual

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	breach of contract	failure to pay rent and taxes
2	unjust enrichment	receiving inequitable benefit
3	forcible entry and detainer	remaining on property without authorization

Petition Text

959 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MCINTOSH COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA HONOR HEIGHTS DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC, Plaintiff, v. NKX SERVICES, LLC., and OCCUPANTS OF 114097 HWY. 69, Defendant(s) PETITION COMES NOW THE Plaintiff, Honor Heights Development Group, LLC ("Plaintiff," "Honor Heights"), and for its complaint against the Defendant(s) NKX Services, LLC ("Defendant," "NKX"), and Occupants of the Real Property in Question, does allege and state: JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATIONS 1. Plaintiff Honor Heights is a corporation doing business in the County of McIntosh, State of Oklahoma; 2. Defendant NKX is a corporation doing business in the County of McIntosh, State of Oklahoma; Occupants of the real property as Defendant(s) are any person(s) or entities currently occupying real property located at 114097 Hwy. 69 in McIntosh County, OK; 3. That the real property in question is in McIntosh County, in the State of Oklahoma; 4. All acts and allegations occurred in McIntosh County, State of Oklahoma; 5. The District Court of McIntosh County has jurisdiction to hear these matters and is the Court of competent, subject matter, and original jurisdiction; FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 6. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs one (1) through five (5) above; 7. Plaintiff maintains ownership interest in certain real property in McIntosh County; 8. That the real property located McIntosh County, State of Oklahoma, is described as, informally, 114097 Highway 69, Eufaula, County of McIntosh, State of Oklahoma; 9. That on or about February 24, 2025, the parties entered into a commercial lease agreement; 10. That the corporate parties were represented by their corporate officers, specifically and to wit: Stephania Timothy for Honor Heights, and Nathan Means for NKM; 11. That the individuals that signed the Commercial Lease were authorized to do so on behalf of the corporate parties; 12. That the terms of the lease included, but were not limited to, specific monthly rent payments, payments for property taxes, and payments for personal taxes; 13. That the payments described above in Paragraph Eleven (¶ 11) were to be made by Defendant NKM to Plaintiff Honor Heights; that as of the date of filing of the Petition, the Defendants owe two thousand nine seventy five dollars and sixty-four cents ($2,975.64) for property taxes, and ten thousand seven hundred fifty dollars ($10,750.00) for rent for January 2026; 14. That the Plaintiff has requested that these moneys be remitted, and Defendant has not done so; 15. That the Plaintiff has requested that the property be vacated, and the Defendant still has possessions in the physical buildings on the property, and the Defendant has not vacated; further, any current occupant of the property is either a) not a party to the Commercial Lease in question and is not authorized to remain on the premises or b) an agent or employee of Defendant; 16. That the Commercial Lease contains a clause regarding arbitration. Plaintiff sent Defendant’s representative a demand for arbitration with a set deadline for participation, and said deadline has passed. Given the Defendants’ unwillingness to participate in arbitration, Plaintiff must move forward with litigation; 17. That the entity with the most and complete right to the property as far as occupancy is the Plaintiff and those that they designate; COUNT ONE (1)—BREACH OF CONTRACT 18. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs one (1) through seventeen (17) above, and for their first cause of action, states: 19. That the acts of the Defendant(s) constitute a breach of contract; 20. That as a result of the Defendants’ breach of contract, the Plaintiff has suffered damages; 21. That the Plaintiff has been forced and compelled to retain counsel in order to prosecute this matter, and Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorney fees; COUNT TWO (2)—UNJUST ENRICHMENT 22. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs one (1) through twenty-one (21) above, and for their second cause of action, states: 23. That the actions of the Defendant constitute an unjust enrichment; 24. That the Defendants received an inequitable benefit to the inequitable detriment of the Plaintiff; 25. That the Plaintiff has been damaged; 26. That the Plaintiff has been forced and compelled to retain counsel to prosecute this matter; 27. That the Plaintiff is entitled to attorney fees and costs; COUNT THREE (3)—FORCIBLE ENTRY AND DETAINER 28. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs one (1) through twenty-seven (27) above, and for their third cause of action, states: 29. That the actions of the Defendant in remaining on the property continue to cause damage to the Plaintiff; 30. That the Defendant(s) have not paid the required rent and taxes, and have no right to remain on the property; 31. That the Defendant(s) who are any occupant of the property are not authorized to remain; 32. That the Plaintiff requires an Order to force and compel the Defendant(s) vacate; 33. That the Plaintiff is entitled to attorney fees and costs; WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays for: 1) an Order which requires and compels the Defendant and any additional occupants of the property to immediately vacate; 2) grants an award for the contractually-required amount for rent(s) and taxes for Count I; 3) grants an award for damages for the unjust enrichment that the Plaintiffs suffered; 4) grants a monetary award in excess of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00) in aggregate for Counts One (1) and Two (2); 5) grants reasonable attorney fees and costs; and 6) grants any and all other relief as may be just, equitable, and allowable under law. DATED this 23rd day of February, 2026. Respectfully submitted by: Wesley J. Cherry, OBA #22851 FOUNDATION LAW, P.L.L.C. P.O. Box 758 McAlester, Oklahoma 74502 (918) 839-6353 Telephone (888) 622-3181 Facsimile [email protected] www.FoundationLawFirm.com Attorney for Plaintiff JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ATTORNEY LIEN CLAIMED AFFIDAVIT AND VERIFICATION OF PLAINTIFF COUNTY OF MCINTOSH .................... } STATE OF OKLAHOMA ....................... } SS I, the undersigned, of sound mind and upon my oath, do state that the following is true and correct as to the best of my knowledge and belief: That I have read the foregoing Petition and it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT! By Stephania Timothy, for: Honor Heights, Plaintiff BY: Signature verified by counsel: Wesley J. Cherry, OBA #22851