CRAZY CIVIL COURT ← Back
LEFLORE COUNTY • CJ-2026-00032

Bigfoot Land Services, Inc. v. Bradley Myers

Filed: Feb 12, 2026
Type: CJ

What's This Case About?

Let’s be real: when you think of high-stakes drama, “landscaping equipment storage dispute” probably doesn’t top your list. But buckle up, because in the wilds of LeFlore County, Oklahoma, one man’s refusal to give back a $254,000 fleet of brush grapples, hydroseeders, and gooseneck trailers has escalated into a full-blown legal war — complete with allegations of betrayal, ghost agreements, and a former employee playing king of the junkyard like he’s running some kind of off-grid machinery monarchy. This isn’t just about lawn care. This is about power. Control. And possibly one very confused Peterbilt semi sitting on a rogue farm, wondering when it’ll see civilization again.

Meet Bigfoot Land Services, Inc., a now-defunct land-clearing company that sounds like it should be featured in a cryptid documentary but was, in fact, very real — at least until 2022. Founded in 2017 by Jimmy Ward and Casey Morgan, the company specialized in clearing massive swaths of forest for power line projects across Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Missouri. Think chainsaws the size of small cars, trucks that look like they survived the apocalypse, and equipment so expensive your average homeowner couldn’t afford a single tire. Fast-forward to June 2022: new ownership takes over, operations continue for a hot minute, then fizzle out. The company shuts down. Debts pile up. Assets need to be sold. Everyone’s trying to get paid. Except someone forgot to tell Bradley Myers, the former job site foreman and all-around company guy, that the party was over.

Because here’s where it gets juicy: back in fall 2021, while Ward and Morgan still ran the show, Bigfoot allegedly struck a deal with Myers. For $500 a month, he’d store the company’s entire fleet of heavy machinery on his property. Trailers, trucks, seeders, augers — the whole industrial yard sale — parked on private land, out of sight, out of mind. No big deal, right? Landscaping companies do this all the time. It’s like renting a storage unit, except instead of your grandma’s china, you’re stashing a $75,000 Kershaw Skytrim 75G tree trimmer. Totally normal. Except now, years later, with the company winding down and creditors circling like vultures, Bigfoot wants its toys back. And Myers? He’s not answering the gate.

According to the lawsuit, Bigfoot has been paying the $500 monthly storage fee even after shutting down operations. That’s dedication — or desperation. They’ve tried to inspect the equipment. They’ve tried to collect it. They’ve sent letters. They’ve called. They’ve probably even knocked politely on Myers’ door like, “Hey, we know this is awkward, but can we have our $254,000 worth of stuff now?” Every time? Denied. Blocked. Shut out. Then comes the kicker: Myers allegedly claims he’s holding the equipment as leverage because, he says, he had a separate compensation agreement with the original owners — Ward and Morgan — that was never fulfilled. Translation: “You guys stiffed me, so I’m keeping the truck.” Except Ward and Morgan have both said, under oath or otherwise, “Uh, no, we didn’t.” And even if they did, that doesn’t give Myers the right to turn a storage arrangement into a hostage situation.

So why are we in court? Because Bigfoot isn’t just mad — they’re legally furious. They’ve filed five (!) claims, which is like bringing a flamethrower to a campfire. First up: Breach of Contract. Simple enough — we had a deal, you took our money, but you won’t give us back our property. That’s not storage. That’s theft with a receipt. Then comes Replevin, which sounds like a medieval curse but is actually a legal tool to get your stuff back now — not after years of appeals, not after a settlement, but immediately, because someone’s unlawfully holding onto your property. Bigfoot wants the court to literally order Myers to hand over the keys to the trailers, the trucks, the hydroseeder — the whole shebang.

But wait, there’s more. Conversion — that’s lawyer-speak for “you took my property and started treating it like it’s yours.” It’s not enough that Myers won’t return the equipment; the implication is that he might be using it, or at least acting like he owns it. And if that’s true? That’s not just a breach. That’s a full-on property hijacking. Then we’ve got Unjust Enrichment — a fancy way of saying, “You got paid to store our stuff, but you didn’t do the storing, and now you’ve got both our money and our gear. That’s a double-dip, and the court should make you spit it out.” And finally, Quantum Meruit, which is Latin for “you benefited from our payments, so you owe us something in return” — basically, “We paid you for a service you didn’t provide, so give us our value back.”

Now, let’s talk numbers. $254,000. That’s not chump change. That’s a down payment on a luxury home. That’s two brand-new Ford F-350s. That’s enough to start a whole new landscaping company — which, honestly, might be exactly what Myers is thinking. The list of missing equipment reads like a yardwork superhero’s arsenal: a $60,000 Peterbilt semi, a $30,000 bucket truck, a $75,000 Skytrim that probably looks like a mechanical giraffe with a chainsaw for a neck. And let’s not forget the “all remaining tools and equipment” line, valued at $40,000, which is basically the legal equivalent of “and also, all the little stuff we can’t even list because there’s too much.” This isn’t a few rakes and a lawnmower. This is an entire operational fleet — the kind of gear that takes years to accumulate. Losing it isn’t just a financial hit. It’s a death blow to any hope of settling debts or salvaging the company’s remains.

So what do they want? Money? Kind of. But more than that, they want their property back. And if Myers has sold it, scrapped it, or turned the Turbosaw into a backyard art installation, then yes — they want every penny of that $254,000. Plus punitive damages, because they’re clearly done playing nice. Plus attorney fees, because this mess has gone on long enough. Plus interest. Plus, probably, a strongly worded apology.

Our take? The most absurd part isn’t even the dollar amount — though, let’s be honest, $254,000 in landscaping tools is a lot of mulch. It’s the sheer audacity of the power play. A former employee, holding an entire company’s assets ransom over a disputed side deal that the people involved say never existed? That’s not leverage. That’s a plot twist in a straight-to-DVD corporate thriller. We’re not saying Myers is running a covert logging empire from his backyard, but if you squint, the story writes itself: a lone operator, guarding a forest of machinery, refusing to bow to corporate demands. It’s almost poetic — if it weren’t so blatantly, legally wrong.

Look, we get it. Maybe Myers feels burned. Maybe he did extra work. Maybe he’s got receipts we haven’t seen. But here’s the thing: even if you’re owed something, you don’t get to keep a $254,000 fleet as collateral. That’s not how property law works. That’s how you get sued into oblivion. We’re rooting for accountability — not just for the return of the gear, but for the message: you can’t just decide you’re the new CEO because you have the keys. Bigfoot may be down, but it’s not out. And if Myers thinks he can just sit on a mountain of machinery and wait for the storm to pass? He’s about to learn the hard way that in court, even the little guys — or, in this case, the big equipment — have rights.

Case Overview

$254,000 Demand Petition
Jurisdiction
District Court of LeFlore County, Oklahoma
Relief Sought
$254,000 Monetary
$1 Punitive
Plaintiffs
Defendants
Claims
# Cause of Action Description
1 Breach of Contract Defendant breached storage agreement by refusing to return stored property
2 Replevin Defendant wrongfully detaining Plaintiff's Personal Property
3 Conversion Defendant converted Plaintiff's Personal Property to his own use and benefit
4 Unjust Enrichment Defendant received valuable consideration from Plaintiff without storing the equipment
5 Quantum Meruit Defendant used and enjoyed benefits of Plaintiff's compensation without returning the Personal Property

Petition Text

1,677 words
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEFLORE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA BIGFOOT LAND SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff, v. BRADLEY MYERS, Defendant. Case No. CJ-26-32 PETITION COMES NOW Plaintiff Bigfoot Land Services, Inc., and for its Petition against Defendant Bradley Myers, hereby states and asserts as follows: JURISDICTION & VENUE 1. Plaintiff is a business incorporated in Oklahoma, previously providing land clearing services across Oklahoma, Western Arkansas, and Southwestern Missouri. 2. Defendant Bradley Myers is an individual citizen of Oklahoma, who, upon information and belief, resides in LeFlore County. 3. The acts giving rise to this suit primarily occurred in Poteau, LeFlore County, Oklahoma. 4. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this county. GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 5. This lawsuit arises from Defendant’s improper retention of Plaintiff’s personal property, consisting primarily of large machinery and equipment. Plaintiff and Defendant had entered into an agreement wherein Defendant would store the equipment of Plaintiff on his property for five hundred ($500.00) per month. Upon the company’s termination of its active operations, Plaintiff sought to collect all of its equipment, assets, and property to liquidate and honor its creditors and debts. However, Defendant refuses to allow Plaintiff to collect its own property. 6. Plaintiff Bigfoot was incorporated in 2017 by Jimmy Ward and Casey Morgan as a land clearing company that primarily cleared large swaths of land for the installation of new power lines. 7. Ward and Morgan remained in ownership until June 2022, when Plaintiff was sold to a new ownership group. 8. Plaintiff employed Defendant during both the original Ward and Morgan ownership and following the change in ownership. 9. Defendant was employed in a variety of roles for Plaintiff, but during the pertinent time, Defendant was employed as job site foreman and supervisor. 10. Based on information and belief, in the fall of 2021, Plaintiff, through then-owners Ward and Morgan, entered an agreement with Defendant under which Plaintiff would pay five hundred dollars ($500.00) per month for Defendant to store Plaintiff’s heavy equipment, trailers, and other equipment, property, and assets of the company on Defendant’s property. 11. Despite formal demand, Defendant has failed to return the following property and assets (hereinafter the “Personal Property”), which on information and belief, remain stored on Defendants’ land. <table> <tr> <th>BRAND/MAKE/MODEL</th> <th>DESCRIPTION</th> <th>VIN OR SERIAL No.</th> <th>ESTIMATED VALUE</th> </tr> <tr> <td>2008 COVERED WAGON</td> <td>16' CARGO CW7X16TA2</td> <td>53FBE1627EF011929</td> <td>$6,000.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2018 BIG TEX</td> <td>TRAILER</td> <td>16VGX3525J6034024</td> <td>$15,000.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2018 CM Trailers</td> <td>10' CARGO (TOOL)</td> <td>49TCB1019J1025730</td> <td>$3,000.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2012 24' TRAILER</td> <td>"Old" Gooseneck</td> <td>133GN2425C1000947</td> <td>$2,000.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2013 FORD</td> <td>F350</td> <td>1FT8W3DT9DEB34036</td> <td>$10,000.00</td> </tr> </table> <table> <tr> <th>2004 PETERBILT</th> <th>SEMI 379</th> <th></th> <th>1XP5DU9X14D837161</th> <th>$60,000.00</th> </tr> <tr> <th>2004 FORD</th> <th>F750 BUCKET TRUCK</th> <th></th> <th>3FRXF76P14V667170</th> <th>$30,000.00</th> </tr> <tr> <th>GREAT PLAINS</th> <th>NO-TILL SEEDER NTS2509</th> <th></th> <th>GP-D1168L</th> <th>$12,000.00</th> </tr> <tr> <th>FINN</th> <th>HYDROSEEDER T60T-30 MD2487</th> <th></th> <th>1F9SP1715EF135487</th> <th>$20,000.00</th> </tr> <tr> <th>KERSHAW</th> <th>SKYTRIM 75G</th> <th></th> <th>75G2-655-21RB</th> <th>$75,000.00</th> </tr> <tr> <th>M&M</th> <th>BRUSH GRAPPLE HR7E12</th> <th></th> <th>HR7E12F19760</th> <th>$3,000.00</th> </tr> <tr> <th>TURBOSAW</th> <th>TURBOSAW</th> <th></th> <th>6194</th> <th>$10,000.00</th> </tr> <tr> <th>BELLTEC</th> <th>AUGER</th> <th></th> <th>11834</th> <th>$3,000.00</th> </tr> <tr> <th>STIRBLING</th> <th></th> <th></th> <th></th> <th>$5,000.00</th> </tr> <tr> <th>BRUSH GUARD</th> <th></th> <th></th> <th></th> <th>$2,000.00</th> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="3">All remaining tools and equipment are contained in the trailers and not listed.</td> <td></td> <td>$40,000.00</td> </tr> </table> 12. Plaintiff holds legal title to, and all ownership interests in, the above-identified Personal Property. 13. For all items requiring paper title, Plaintiff holds said title in its name. 14. Plaintiff shut down active operations during Fall 2022. Nonetheless, Plaintiff continued to pay the monthly fee to Defendant to store the Personal Property. 15. During the intervening time, an ownership dispute concerning Plaintiff was litigated. That litigation concluded at the very end of 2024. Since that time, Plaintiff has been winding up operations, attempting to honor debt obligations and to collect all assets and property of the company. 16. Plaintiff attempted multiple times to view, inspect, and collect the equipment from Defendant throughout 2025, but all attempts were met with refusal. 17. Plaintiff, through counsel, sent a written demand on November 24, 2025, but Defendant is still refusing to release Plaintiff's property. 18. As an excuse, Defendant has claimed that he entered a separate compensation agreement with former owners Ward and Morgan, that the agreement was not fulfilled, and that he is holding the personal property as leverage. 19. Ward and Morgan have each denied the creation of any such agreement. 20. Regardless, Defendant asserts no lien (and has no statutory or contractual lien rights) and has no legal right or excuse that would justify his withholding of Plaintiff's property. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION - BREACH OF CONTRACT 21. Plaintiff adopts and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1–20 and restates them as if fully set forth herein. 22. The parties have a valid storage agreement, and Plaintiff is current on all payments under that agreement. 23. Defendant has breached the agreement by refusing to return the stored property to Plaintiff. 24. Plaintiff has been injured as direct result of Defendant’s breach of the storage agreement and is thus entitled to recover damages from Defendant in an amount exceeding $75,000.00, as well as its costs incurred in connection with this claim, along with such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION - REP LEVIN 25. Plaintiff adopts and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1–24 and restates them as if fully set forth herein. 26. Defendant is wrongfully detaining Plaintiff's Personal Property. Plaintiff continues to pay the rental amount but is still being denied access to the property to regain possession. 27. The value of the property being wrongfully detained equals or exceeds $254,000.00. 28. Plaintiff's property was not taken in execution on any order or judgment against Plaintiff, or for the payment of any tax, fine, or amercement assessed against him, or by virtue of an order of delivery issued under Oklahoma law, or any other mesne or final process issued against Plaintiff. 29. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff prays that this Court grant immediate delivery of the Personal Property—and, for any item that cannot be recovered, an award of damages for the value of said property—as well as Plaintiff's costs and attorneys' fees incurred in connection with this dispute along with such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION - CONVERSION 30. Plaintiff adopts and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1–29 and restates them as if fully set forth herein. 31. Plaintiff's Personal Property remains in Defendant's possession and control. 32. Defendant has, without justification, exercised exclusive possession and dominion over Plaintiff's property and converted said property to his own use and benefit. 33. Plaintiff is entitled to recover the full value of the Personal Property that was converted—or, if higher, the highest market value attained during the time since conversion, per 23 O.S. § 64—in an amount that exceeds $75,000.00, as well as its costs, attorneys' fees, all other time and resources expended in pursuit of the property's return, and punitive damages, along with such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. FORTH CAUSE OF ACTION - UNJUST ENRICHMENT 34. Plaintiff adopts and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1–33 and restates them as if fully set forth herein. 35. Defendant received valuable consideration from Plaintiff in exchange for storing Plaintiff’s equipment. Defendant, however, did not ultimately store the equipment but instead stole the equipment and now has possession of both the valuable Personal Property and the consideration paid for a storage fee. 36. Defendant’s refusal to grant Plaintiff access to and possession of the stored property, while retaining the monthly payments Plaintiff has made and Plaintiff’s valuable property, violates the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience. 37. Plaintiff prays the Court enter judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff for such unjust enrichment in an amount that exceeds $75,000.00, as well as their costs incurred in connection with this dispute and punitive damages, along with such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION - QUANTUM MERUIT 38. Plaintiff adopts and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1–37 and restates them as if fully set forth herein. 39. Defendant used, accepted, and enjoyed the benefits of Plaintiff’s valuable compensation for months while denying access to the Personal Property. 40. Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of receiving its property back in exchange for their valuable compensation. Instead, it has received nothing. 41. Based on the foregoing, as a direct result of Defendant’s material violation of his obligations to Plaintiff, and his refusal to return the Personal Property for the benefits conferred to him, Plaintiff requests a judgment in quantum meruit against Defendant for an amount in excess of $75,000, and prays that this Court enters judgment in its favor for their damages along with its costs, and expenses, incurred with this dispute, together with punitive damages and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court grant judgment in its favor and against Defendant and award damages in an amount in excess of $75,000.00, together with punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, all costs and expenses, post-judgment interest at the statutory rate, and any such other relief the Court may deem just and proper. Respectfully Submitted, Kelsey Frobisher Schremmer, OBA No. 35841 Matthew Taylor, OBA No. 34808 OVERMAN LEGAL GROUP, PLLC 809 NW 36th Street Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73118 Telephone: (405) 605-6718 Facsimile: (405) 605-6719 Email: [email protected] [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
Disclaimer: This content is sourced from publicly available court records. Crazy Civil Court is an entertainment platform and does not provide legal advice. We are not lawyers. All information is presented as-is from public filings.