CJ-2026-1796 - Melissa Pierce v. Stuteville Ford of Tahlequah, LLC

What's This Case About?

Let’s be real: you don’t expect your dream camper van — the one you bought so you could road-trip with your kids, safely, like some wholesome Pinterest fantasy — to turn out to be a former rental car with a bent frame, undisclosed safety recalls, and the structural integrity of a soda can after a football game. But that’s exactly what happened to Melissa Pierce, who thought she was buying a clean, reliable 2023 Ford Transit Cargo Van… and instead got what can only be described as a rolling betrayal wrapped in steel and bad intentions.

Melissa, a mom from Fayetteville, Arkansas, had a plan. She wanted to convert a van into a mobile home for family adventures — the kind of wholesome, off-grid parenting flex that involves composting toilets and Instagram hashtags like #VanLifeWithKids. So in March 2024, she did her homework. She scoured online listings, found a 2023 Ford Transit Cargo Van advertised by Stuteville Ford of Tahlequah, Oklahoma, and made the two-hour drive across state lines to check it out in person. This wasn’t an impulse buy. She told the salesperson upfront that this van was going to be her family’s home on wheels. Safety? Non-negotiable. Reliability? Mandatory. And the dealership? They promised her both — with a cherry on top.

They told her the van had been owned by Ford, acquired through an internal auction — a common way dealers get clean, low-mileage trade-ins. They said it was undamaged. They said it was safe. They said it was reliable. What they didn’t say? That it had been a rental car. That it had a known safety recall. That its frame was bent like a pretzel. Oh, and that they’d known about the recall two weeks before selling it to her — but chose to keep their lips sealed and their profit margins fat.

Melissa signed on the dotted line, financing $60,561 through a Retail Installment Sales Contract that Ally Bank later took over. The kicker? The sticker price was higher than MSRP — $57,992 versus $57,025 — but the dealership had the audacity to claim she was getting a discount. Sure, Jan. Meanwhile, the van came with a ticking time bomb: Safety Recall 24S05, which dealt with a potentially catastrophic rear axle issue. Stuteville got the recall notice on March 7, 2024. Melissa bought the van days later. They didn’t fix it. They didn’t tell her. They just handed over the keys and waved her off like, “Drive safe, mom! Hope the axle holds!”

Fast forward to May 2024. Melissa’s driving the van in Arkansas when it starts making a severe grinding noise from the back. Not a gentle hum. Not a little rattle. We’re talking metal-on-metal horror movie soundtrack levels of noise. She takes it to Lewis Ford, who delivers the news: “Ma’am, this vehicle is unsafe to drive.” Parts? Unavailable. Fixable? Not right now. She hauls it back to Stuteville in Tahlequah, where they claim to fix it. She drives it again. It still feels like a haunted carnival ride, but she’s stuck — she’s got payments, she’s got kids, she’s got a dream that’s slowly turning into a mechanical nightmare.

Over the next year and a half — yes, 18 months — Melissa drags the van back to Stuteville multiple times. September 2024: another repair attempt. July 2025: more problems. October 2025: back again. Each time, the dealership plays the “oops, must’ve missed something” card, while the van continues to degrade like a cursed object from a Stephen King novel.

Then comes the bombshell. In December 2025, she takes it to Bob Maloney Collision Center for a full inspection. They measure the frame. And they drop the truth like a wrecking ball: the unibody frame is severely bent. This isn’t wear and tear. This is structural damage from a prior collision — damage that was already there when Stuteville sold it to her. The kind of damage that compromises the entire safety of the vehicle. The kind that should’ve been disclosed. The kind that makes you wonder how it even passed inspection. And the shop? They say they can’t even fix it. The damage is too extreme.

So here’s where we are: Melissa is still making payments — likely hundreds a month — on a vehicle that’s unsafe, unfixable, and was sold to her under a web of lies. She wanted a camper van. She got a lemon with a criminal record.

Now, why is she suing? Let’s break it down like we’re explaining it to a jury of sleep-deprived parents who just want their minivan to start in the winter. Melissa isn’t just mad — she’s got legal grounds. She’s accusing Stuteville Ford of Tahlequah of breach of contract (they promised a safe, reliable van — didn’t deliver), fraud (they lied about the vehicle’s history and condition), violating the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act (basically, “don’t scam people”), violating the Uniform Commercial Code (a set of rules about fair sales practices), negligence (they should’ve known about the damage), and she wants to rescind the sale — meaning, “give me my money back, take this death trap away.” She’s also going after Ally Bank, the lender, because under federal rules, when a bank buys a car loan, they inherit all the sins of the dealership. So if the sale was fraudulent, the bank can’t just hide behind “we’re just the finance company.” Nope. They’re on the hook too — for ratifying the fraud, violating consumer laws, and failing to help when she reached out.

What does she want? The filing doesn’t specify a dollar amount — which is unusual, but not unheard of in early petitions. But let’s do the math. She’s paid over $60,000 for a vehicle that’s now a glorified paperweight. She’s spent on inspections, repairs, towing, rental cars, and emotional distress (we assume). She’s lost the use of the van for over a year. She’s still paying for it. Even if she asked for $50,000, that’d be conservative. For context, that’s less than what she financed — and she didn’t even get a working vehicle in return. This isn’t about getting rich. It’s about not being financially ruined because a dealership decided transparency was optional.

And honestly? The most absurd part isn’t even the bent frame. It’s the recall cover-up. Stuteville got notified of a safety recall — a known defect that could cause axle failure — before selling the van. They didn’t fix it. They didn’t disclose it. They didn’t warn her. They let a mom drive away in a vehicle that could’ve failed catastrophically on the highway with her kids in the back. That’s not just shady — it’s borderline criminal. And Ally Bank? Sitting back like, “Not our problem,” while collecting payments on a car they now know is a disaster? Come on.

We’re rooting for Melissa. Not just because she’s a mom trying to live her best van life, but because this case is a textbook example of why consumer protection laws exist. Dealerships can’t just slap a sticker on a damaged rental car, call it “pre-owned,” and sell it to the highest bidder without telling the truth. And banks can’t wash their hands of fraud just because they weren’t the ones handing over the keys. If this doesn’t result in a jury saying “hell no” to Stuteville Ford, then the whole system is broken.

So grab your popcorn, because this one’s going to trial — jury demanded. And when it does, we’ll be listening like it’s the season finale of Lemon Law: The Musical. Let’s hope justice comes with a catalytic converter that actually works.

Case Overview

Jury Trial Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Minal Gahlot

Oklahoma Consumer Law Firm

Relief Sought

Plaintiffs

Melissa Pierce individual
Rep: Minal Gahlot of Oklahoma Consumer Law Firm

Defendants

Stuteville Ford of Tahlequah, LLC business
Ally Bank business

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	breach of contract, fraud/fraudulent inducement, violation of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act (OCPA), Violation of Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), negligence, and Rescission/Revocation	-
2	breach of contract, violation of OCPA, Violation of Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), Ratification/Fruit of the fraud liability, and Rescission/Revocation	-

Petition Text

1,424 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA MELISSA PIERCE Plaintiff, v. STUTEVILLE FORD OF TAHLEQUAH, LLC, and ALLY BANK Defendants. PETITION AND NOTICE OF PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE Comes now the Plaintiff, Melissa Pierce, (Ms. Pierce), by and through her attorney of record, Minal Gahlot of Oklahoma Consumer Law Firm, and for her causes of action against the Defendants states as follows: STATEMENT OF FACTS SUPPORTING EACH CLAIM 1. On or about March 20, 2024, Ms. Pierce visited Stuteville Ford of Tahlequah, LLC, (Stuteville) to purchase a safe and reliable vehicle. 2. Prior to visiting the dealership, Plaintiff viewed a used 2023 Ford Transit Cargo Van (VIN: 1FTBR3U81PKB38256) advertised for sale online. 3. Plaintiff informed Stuteville that she intended to convert the vehicle into a camper van so she could travel with her children. 4. Plaintiff drove from her home in Fayetteville, Arkansas to Stuteville’s dealership located in Tahlequah, Oklahoma. 5. Stuteville’s salesperson represented that the vehicle had previously been owned by Ford and obtained through a Ford auction, and that the vehicle was safe, reliable, and undamaged. 6. Stuteville did not disclose any prior collision, structural damage, rental use, or active safety recalls affecting the vehicle. 7. Relying on these representations, Plaintiff agreed to purchase the vehicle. 8. The vehicle’s window sticker reflected an MSRP of $57,025.00, yet Stuteville listed the cash price as $57,992.00 on the Retail Installment Sales Contract while representing that the vehicle was being sold at a discount. 9. Plaintiff financed the purchase through a Retail Installment Sales Contract with a total amount financed of $60,561.00, which was subsequently assigned to Defendant Ally Bank ("Ally"). 10. Plaintiff later discovered that the vehicle had previously been used as a rental vehicle, which was not disclosed during the sales transaction. 11. At the time Stuteville sold the vehicle, the vehicle was subject to Safety Recall 24S05/NHTSA 24V102. 12. According to Supplement #1 to Safety Recall 24S05, Stuteville received notice of the recall by March 7, 2024, two weeks before Plaintiff purchased the vehicle and did not perform the recall. 13. Despite having notice of the recall, Stuteville did not disclose the recall to Plaintiff at the time of sale, and Stuteville withheld notice of the recall for approximately six weeks until early May when Plaintiff received a letter informing her of the recall. 14. On or about May 8, 2024, after receiving notice of the recall, Plaintiff took the vehicle to Lewis Ford in Fayetteville, Arkansas. 15. Plaintiff informed Lewis Ford that the vehicle was making a severe grinding noise from the rear of the vehicle. 16. After inspecting the vehicle, Lewis Ford informed Plaintiff that the vehicle was unsafe to drive and that parts were unavailable. 17. On May 15, 2024, Plaintiff returned the vehicle to Stuteville due to its unsafe condition for recall related repairs, and she informed them of the loud grinding noise coming from the rear of the vehicle, which Stuteville represented that the issue had been repaired. 18. On or about September 16, 2024, Stuteville again attempted repairs on the vehicle relating to the recall and grinding noise. 19. In July of 2025, Plaintiff again began experiencing significant issues while operating the vehicle and took the vehicle back to Stuteville for attempted repair. 20. In October of 2025, Plaintiff returned the van to Stuteville due to the persisting issues with the van. 21. In December of 2025, Plaintiff took the van to Bob Maloney Collision Center (Collision Center) for inspection and measurement of the vehicle’s frame. 22. The Collision Center informed Plaintiff that the vehicle’s unibody frame was severely bent. 23. The Collision Center further informed Plaintiff that the vehicle would require an entirely new frame and that the damage was so extensive that their shop was not equipped to perform the repairs. 24. Upon inspection, the damage was determined to be longstanding structural damage caused by a prior collision and present at the time the vehicle was sold to Plaintiff. 25. The structural damage materially affects the vehicle’s safety, drivability, and structural integrity. 26. Stuteville knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known of the vehicle’s prior collision damage and structural defects. 27. Plaintiff notified Ally of the issues with the vehicle, and they incorrectly informed her that there was nothing that they could do to assist her. 28. Plaintiff continues to make payments on a vehicle that is structurally defective and unsafe. 29. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of Defendants described herein, Plaintiff has suffered damages including, but not limited to, the purchase of a structurally defective vehicle, loan obligations associated with the vehicle, repair expenses, inspection costs, loss of use, and other consequential damages. 30. In addition to independent claims, pursuant to Federal Trade Commission Rule 16 C.F.R. § 433 et seq., Ally Bank, as assignee of Retail Installment Contract, is subject to all claims and defenses that Plaintiff could assert against the dealership. 31. Plaintiff brings this direct cause of action against Stuteville and derivative claims against Ally Bank for statutory, actual, consequential, and exemplary damages for breach of contract, fraud/fraudulent inducement, violation of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act (OCPA), Violation of Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), negligence, and Rescission/Revocation; requesting their attorney fees and costs in addition to the above damages. 32. Plaintiffs also bring independent claims against Ally Bank for statutory, actual, consequential, and exemplary damages against Defendants for breach of contract, violation of OCPA, Violation of Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), Ratification/Fruit of the fraud liability, and Rescission/Revocation; requesting her attorney fees and costs in addition to the above damages. NOTICE OF PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE 33. Defendants Stuteville Ford of Tahlequah, LLC and Ally Bank are hereby placed on notice of their duty to preserve all evidence relevant to the claims and defenses in this matter. This duty extends to all documents, communications, electronically stored information ("ESI"), recordings, physical evidence, and other materials relating to Plaintiff, the subject vehicle, the sales transaction, financing, inspections, repairs, recalls, or any communications concerning Plaintiff or the vehicle. 34. Defendants must preserve, without limitation, all written and electronic records, including but not limited to contracts, deal jackets, buyer’s orders, Retail Installment Sales Contracts, internal notes, emails, text messages, instant messages, internal messaging platforms, call logs, phone recordings, customer service recordings, dealership CRM records, dealership management system ("DMS") data (including systems such as Reynolds & Reynolds, CDK, DealerTrack, RouteOne, or similar platforms), service records, inspection reports, reconditioning records, diagnostic reports, recall documentation, internal communications, and any other correspondence or records relating to Plaintiff or the vehicle. 35. Defendants must also preserve all audio recordings, video recordings, surveillance footage, dealership camera footage, service bay footage, body shop footage, sales floor recordings, and any other digital or analog recordings depicting or relating to Plaintiff, the vehicle, or the transaction. 36. Defendants must preserve all electronically stored information in their possession, custody, or control, including but not limited to information stored on servers, computers, laptops, mobile devices, tablets, external drives, backup systems, cloud storage platforms, and any third-party vendor systems. This includes all metadata associated with such records. 37. Defendants must preserve all physical evidence relating to the vehicle, including the vehicle itself and all component parts, removed parts, replaced parts, repair components, inspection tools or data, photographs, measurements, and any materials reflecting the inspection, repair, modification, or condition of the vehicle. 38. Defendants must also preserve any records relating to the vehicle’s acquisition prior to sale, including but not limited to auction records, vehicle condition reports, inspection reports, transportation records, reconditioning records, and any communications with prior owners, auctions, wholesalers, rental companies, or other dealers concerning the vehicle. 39. This preservation obligation applies to all materials within Defendants’ possession, custody, or control, including materials held by employees, agents, affiliates, contractors, service providers, repair facilities, auction houses, vendors, lenders, and any other third parties acting on Defendants’ behalf. 40. Defendants are instructed not to destroy, alter, overwrite, repair, discard, sell, transfer, or otherwise modify any such evidence, whether intentionally or inadvertently, until this litigation is fully resolved or further order of the Court. 41. Defendants must immediately suspend any routine document destruction policies, data deletion policies, auto-delete settings, recycling of backup media, or other retention practices that could result in the loss of relevant evidence. 42. Defendants are further advised that the failure to preserve relevant evidence may constitute spoliation and may result in sanctions, including adverse inference instructions, exclusion of evidence, or other relief deemed appropriate by the Court. WHEREFORE, premises stated, Ms. Pierce prays the Court award her actual, consequential, and exemplary damages, along with statutory penalties and attorney fees and costs. Sincerely, Minal Gahlot, OBA# 22145 Oklahoma Consumer Law Firm 922 SW 107th Street. Suite 200 Oklahoma City, OK 73170 405-331-5811 [email protected] Attorney for the Plaintiff ATTORNEY LIEN CLAIMED JURY TRIAL DEMANDED