CJ-2026-00027 - Weston Scott v. Jacqueline D. Scott

What's This Case About?

Let’s get one thing straight: this isn’t your garden-variety family feud over Grandma’s china. No, this is a full-blown trust fund takedown, allegedly orchestrated by the daughter who was supposed to protect it — but instead, according to her brothers, turned it into her personal piggy bank while locking them out of the family homestead like they were random squatters. Oh, and she once admitted to stealing U.S. mail from the Oklahoma Department of Corrections. So when she says she’s just “managing” the estate? Forgive the beneficiaries if they’re not buying it.

Meet the Scott siblings: Weston, Brian, and Jacqueline — three adult children of Linda Kay Scott, a woman who clearly wanted peace in her afterlife but probably didn’t get it. Mom passed away in December 2025, leaving behind a trust that was supposed to divide her 15.32-acre property in Craig County, Oklahoma — complete with two homes — equally among her kids. On paper, it’s simple: three siblings, one trust, equal shares. But enter Jacqueline, the designated “first successor trustee,” which basically means she was handed the keys, the ledger, and the moral responsibility to play fair. Instead, she allegedly played Monopoly — with real property and zero regard for the other players.

The drama kicks off not with a bang, but with silence — the kind that follows when someone refuses to answer calls, produce financial records, or pay the funeral bills. According to the petition filed by Weston and Brian, Jacqueline, as trustee, has done none of the things a trustee is supposed to do. She hasn’t paid off Mom’s funeral expenses — which the trust explicitly requires — hasn’t filed tax returns for the estate, hasn’t paid insurance premiums, and, oh yeah, hasn’t given any accounting of the trust’s assets. In trust law, that’s not just rude — it’s a cardinal sin. And yet, while the books remain sealed, the trucks keep rolling: video evidence shows Jacqueline hauling stuff out of the main house, known as the “Homeplace,” while simultaneously disabling security cameras meant to protect those very assets. Poetic? Only if you think betrayal is poetic.

But wait — there’s more. While Mom’s house gets stripped down like a car in a chop shop, Jacqueline is allegedly letting non-beneficiaries — relatives and others — walk off with trust property too. It’s like an all-access yard sale, except no one invited the actual owners. And speaking of access: she changed the locks. That’s right. The brothers claim they can’t even step foot on their own inherited property because Jacqueline locked them out — and, in a move that feels like a soap opera crossover, she’s now living in the Homeplace even though she already has a lease on a different house on the same property. Which brings us to Leasegate.

See, before she died, Linda Scott signed a lease with Jacqueline for one of the two homes — the one at 434350 E. 300 Road — for $500 a month. But here’s the legal hiccup: after 2016, the land was transferred into the trust. So when Linda signed that lease in her individual name, she may have been leasing out property she no longer personally owned. The brothers argue the lease is therefore invalid — a technicality Jacqueline might not appreciate when the court tells her she’s been squatting in a house she never had the right to rent. And even if the lease is valid? She hasn’t paid rent since Mom died. So either way, she’s behind the eight ball.

Now, let’s talk money. The brothers are suing for over $75,000 in damages — which, for a rural Oklahoma property dispute, is no small potatoes. Is that a lot? Well, it depends. If we’re talking about outright theft of cash, maybe. But when you factor in unpaid rent, lost asset value from missing property, legal fees, and the cost of frozen access to real estate they co-own, $75k starts to look less like greed and more like a conservative estimate. Especially when you consider they’re also asking the court to surcharge Jacqueline — meaning her own share of the trust could be reduced to cover the damages she allegedly caused. In trust law, that’s the financial equivalent of getting benched for unsportsmanlike conduct.

So what do they actually want? Removal of Jacqueline as trustee — check. A court-ordered accounting — double check. An injunction to stop her from selling or moving any more assets — checkmate. They want her evicted from the Homeplace, her lease terminated, and her hands off their four-wheelers (yes, that’s in there — Weston wants his side-by-side back, because apparently even ATVs aren’t safe in this saga). They want the trust wound down properly, debts paid, and the rest split three ways — like Mom intended.

And honestly? The most absurd part isn’t even the theft, the lockout, or the mail-stealing confession (though yes, that’s wild — picture this: a woman entrusted with managing a family estate once stole government mail and admitted it on tape). No, the wildest thing is the sheer audacity of it all. Jacqueline wasn’t just a beneficiary — she was the trustee. That’s a position of trust. It’s not a power grab opportunity. It’s not “first come, first served.” It’s a legal duty to act in the best interest of all beneficiaries — not just yourself. And yet, from refusing to file taxes to living in the wrong house to letting cousins walk off with Mom’s stuff, every move she’s allegedly made screams self-interest.

We’re rooting for the brothers, sure — but more than that, we’re rooting for the idea that family legacies shouldn’t be hijacked by the person holding the paperwork. Because if this case teaches us anything, it’s that blood ties mean nothing when someone sees an inheritance as a buffet. And Mom? Linda Kay Scott probably didn’t write that trust to fund a solo victory lap. She wrote it to keep her kids connected — not to watch them tear each other apart over who gets the couch and who gets the courthouse.

Now, will the court see it that way? That’s a question for the judges. But one thing’s for sure: in the great American tradition of family drama, this one’s got everything — betrayal, real estate, locked doors, and a woman who may have learned the wrong lesson from her time working in corrections. Let’s just hope justice isn’t served too slowly.

Case Overview

$75,000 Demand Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Bryce P. Harp

HARP LAW

Relief Sought

$75,000 Monetary

Injunctive Relief

Declaratory Relief

Plaintiffs

Weston Scott individual
Rep: Bryce P. Harp, OBA # 30869
Brian Scott individual
Rep: Bryce P. Harp, OBA # 30869

Defendants

Jacqueline D. Scott individual

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Breach of Trust, Removal of Trustee, and Accounting	Plaintiffs allege Defendant committed breach of trust by engaging in self-dealing, failing to pay Trust debts, wasting Trust assets, and refusing to produce an accounting and inventory.
2	Temporary Injunction (Prohibiting Defendant from Disposing of Trust Assets)	Plaintiffs seek a temporary injunction to prevent Defendant from removing or selling Trust assets without accounting to Plaintiffs.
3	Waste/Self-Dealing	Plaintiffs allege Defendant caused and committed waste by allowing relatives to take Trust assets, removing Trust assets from the Homeplace, and failing to protect and preserve Trust assets.
4	Ejectment	Plaintiffs seek to eject Defendant from the Homeplace and recover damages for Defendant's wrongful possession.
5	Terminate Defendant's Lease	Plaintiffs seek to terminate Defendant's lease of the Leasehold Estate and eject Defendant from the Homeplace.
6	Conversion	Plaintiff Weston Scott alleges Defendant locked him out of the Homeplace and refused to return his personal property, converting it into Defendant's own use.

Petition Text

1,984 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CRAIG COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA WESTON SCOTT AND BRIAN SCOTT, Plaintiffs, vs. JACQUELINE D. SCOTT, Defendant. CASE NO. CJ-2026- 27 PETITION COMES NOW, Plaintiffs, Weston Scott and Brian Scott, beneficiaries and co-successor trustees of the Linda Kay Scott Trust Agreement dated August 19, 2016, by and through said parties' attorney, Bryce P. Harp of HARP LAW, state as follows in support of their action against Defendant Jacqueline D. Scott: Parties, Jurisdiction, Venue 1. Plaintiffs Weston Scott and Brian Scott ("Plaintiffs") are the sons of Linda Kay Scott ("Decedent") and beneficiaries of the Linda Kay Scott Trust Agreement dated August 19, 2016 ("Trust"). Plaintiffs are residents of Craig County, State of Oklahoma. 2. Defendant Jacqueline Scott is the daughter of Decedent and a beneficiary of the Trust, and she resides in Craig County, State of Oklahoma. 3. The Trust owns real property in Craig County, State of Oklahoma. 4. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in the District Court in and for Craig County, State of Oklahoma. Allegations 5. On August 29, 2016, Linda Kay Scott conveyed the following real estate to the Trust consisting of 15.32 acres and two homes: A tract, piece, or parcel of land located in the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (S/2 SE/4 SW/4) of Section Three (3), Township Twenty-four (24) North, Range Nineteen (19) East of Indian Meridian, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point 209.37 feet East of the Southwest Corner of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (S/2 SE/4 SW/4); thence North 208.75 feet; thence East 1110.63 feet to a point 208.75 feet North of the Southeast Corner of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (S/2 SE/4 SW/4); thence South 208.75 feet to the Southeast Corner of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (S/2 SE/4 SW/4); thence West along the South boundary line, a distance of 1110.63 feet to the place of beginning, containing 5.32 acres, more or less; and A tract, piece, or parcel of land located in the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (S/2 SE/4 SW/4) of Section Three (3), Township Twenty-four (24) North, Range Nineteen (19) East of Indian Meridian, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point 209.37 feet East of the Southwest Corner and North 208.75 feet of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (S/2 SE/4 SW/4); thence North 392.21 feet; thence East 1110.63 feet to a point 600.96 feet North of the Southeast Corner of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (S/2 SE/4 SW/4); thence South 392.21 feet thence West a distance of 1110.63 feet to the place of beginning, containing 10 acres, more or less. ("Real Property") 6. Decedent passed away on December 19, 2025. 7. Under the Trust, Defendant is the First Successor Trustee, and the Plaintiffs are co-successor trustees. 8. Defendant refuses to produce accounting and inventory to Plaintiffs. 9. Article 2 of the Trust requires Defendant to pay Decedent’s funeral costs out of the Trust. Defendant is causing the Trust and Decedent’s estate to incur unnecessary liabilities by refusing to pay Decedent’s funeral costs and other expenses. 10. On information and belief, Trustee is not paying other Trust and estate debts such as insurance premiums. 11. Defendant refuses to file tax returns on behalf of Decedent, Decedent’s estate, and the Trust. 12. On information and belief, Trustee is appropriating trust assets for herself, including but not limited to, bank account funds. 13. Pursuant to Trustor’s Trust, the Trust estate shall be distributed equally among Plaintiffs and Defendant. 14. Video evidence confirms Defendant removed Trust assets from Decedent’s home located at 434318 East 300 Road, Vinita, OK 74301 (“Homeplace”). 15. Defendant turned off and/or removed security cameras on the Trust property in place to protect and preserve Trust assets. 16. Defendant refuses to produce accounting and inventory of estate assets 17. Defendant refuses to provide all beneficiaries equal access to trust assets. 18. Defendant is self-dealing by using Decedent’s home for her sole and exclusive benefit to the exclusion of other beneficiaries. 19. Defendant allowed family members and non-family members that are not Trust beneficiaries to take Trust property from the Homestead. 20. Defendant is party to (an unlawful) residential lease where she rents the residence located at 434350 E. 300 Road, Vinita, OK 74301 (“Lease Estate”), which is owned by the Trust. However, on information and belief, Defendant has not paid rent since Decedent died. 21. Moreover, though she has a lease to the Lease Estate, Defendant moved into the Homeplace and changed the locks. 22. The Trust provides that Plaintiffs and Defendant are to receive the Trust estate in equal shares. 23. Defendant refuses to convey the real estate in equal shares and/or refuses to sell the Trust real estate so the proceeds may be distributed. 24. Defendant is also the named executor under Decedent’s pour-over will, but Defendant refuses to file a probate to transfer assets into Trust as the will requires. 25. Defendant is not fit to serve as Trustee due to her dishonesty, admitted theft, and inability to manage financial matters. 26. Moreover, Plaintiffs have Defendant’s recorded confession that she stole property, including U.S. Mail, from the Oklahoma Department of Corrections while she was employed at the Oklahoma Forensics Center in Vinita, OK. COUNT I – BREACH OF TRUST, REMOVAL OF TRUSTEE, AND ACCOUNTING 27. Plaintiffs incorporate each of the prior allegations by this reference except when plead in the alternative. 28. Defendant committed breach of trust by engaging in self-dealing, failing to pay Trust debts, wasting Trust assets, failing to protect Trust assets, refusing to distribute the Trust estate, and refusing to produce an accounting and inventory. 29. Defendant admitted to stealing government property and mail while employed by the Oklahoma Department of Corrections and accordingly is not fit to serve in a fiduciary capacity. 30. Due to Defendant’s breaches of trust, breaches of fiduciary duty, admitted dishonesty and illegal acts, and lack of accountability, Plaintiffs are entitled to an order removing Defendant as trustee pursuant to 60 O.S § 175.39. 31. Plaintiffs are entitled to orders directing Defendant to remedy her breach of trust as provided in 60 O.S. § 175.57(B) and 60 O.S. § 175.23(A), including but not limited to, enjoining Defendant from committing breach of trust, ordering trustee to produce an accounting and inventory to be approved by the Court, removing the Defendant as trustee, denying compensation to the Defendant, and surcharging Defendant’s share of the Trust. COUNT II – TEMPORARY INJUNCTION (PROHIBIT DEFENDANT FROM DISPOSING OF TRUST ASSETS) 32. Plaintiffs incorporate each of the prior allegations by this reference except when plead in the alternative. 33. Defendant locked Plaintiffs out of the Homeplace and is in the process of removing Trust assets from the Homeplace. 34. Defendant is violating her duty to protect Trust assets by, i.e., turning off security cameras at the Homeplace. 35. The Trust assets are in imminent risk of irreparable harm unless the Court issues a temporary injunction enjoining Defendant from disposing, selling, taking, and removing Trust assets. 36. The Court is authorized to “construe the provisions of any trust instrument . . . the existence or nonexistence of facts affecting the administration of the trust estate . . . and in its discretion to supervise the administration of trusts . . .” under 60 O.S. § 175.23(A) and to grant temporary injunctions pursuant to 12 O.S. § 1382. 37. Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits as Defendant has no authority to remove, sell, or take Trust assets without accounting to Plaintiffs. 38. Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits as Defendant is not permitted to engage in self-dealing and waste. 39. Defendant’s right and title to the Trust estate is not superior to Plaintiffs’ right and title to the Trust estate, so Defendant will not incur undue burden under the temporary injunction. As such, the threatened injury to Plaintiffs without an injunction is greater than the injury, if any, Defendant may experience under a temporary injunction. 40. The requested temporary injunction serves the public interest. 41. Plaintiffs are entitled to a temporary injunction enjoining Defendant from taking, selling, or otherwise disposing of Trust property. COUNT III – WASTE/SELF-DEALING 42. Plaintiffs incorporate each of the prior allegations by this reference except when plead in the alternative. 43. Defendant caused and committed waste by: a. allowing relatives to pilfer Decedent’s home and take Trust assets; b. removing Trust assets from the Homeplace without accounting to the beneficiaries or paying fair value for the assets; c. failing to pay rent to the Trust; d. failing to protect and preserve Trust assets. 44. Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment against Defendant for money damages, interest, fees, and costs to be surcharged against Defendant’s share of the Trust. 45. Plaintiffs are further entitled to judgment in equity disgorging the profits and proceeds Defendant earned by virtue of her wrongful acts. COUNT IV – EJECTMENT 46. Plaintiffs incorporate each of the prior allegations by this reference except when plead in the alternative. 47. Defendant is in wrongful possession and occupation of the Homeplace, claims an estate and adverse interest in the Homeplace, and Defendant’s claims are without any right. 48. Defendant’s wrongful occupation constitutes a continuing trespass and deprives Plaintiffs of equal access to their share of the Trust. 49. Plaintiffs are entitled to equal possession of the Homeplace and have made demand for the same. 50. Defendant continues depriving Plaintiffs of possession of the Homeplace. 51. Plaintiffs are entitled to an order ejecting Defendant from the Homeplace and judgment for damages arising from Defendant’s wrongful possession, attorney’s fees, costs, and interest. COUNT V – TERMINATE DEFENDANT’S LEASE 52. Plaintiffs incorporate each of the prior allegations by this reference except when plead in the alternative. 53. Decedent conveyed her land into Trust on August 29, 2016. 54. Decedent signed a lease for the Leasehold Estate with Defendant in Decedent’s individual name on December 12, 2016 (attached hereto as Exhibit “A”). 55. Decedent, as an individual, was not authorized to lease Trust property to Defendant. 56. Because the Trust is not a party to the lease with Defendant, the Lease is unlawful and should be terminated. 57. By virtue of the foregoing, Defendant’s lease is unlawful and void, and Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment terminating the Lease and ejecting Defendant from the Leasehold Estate. 58. Alternatively, if the Court determines the lease is valid, Plaintiffs are entitled to orders ejecting Plaintiff from the Homeplace as Defendant is only authorized to reside in the Leasehold Estate. 59. If the Court determines the lease is valid, Plaintiffs are entitled to orders directing Defendant to pay all rent owed under the lease and removing Defendant from the Leasehold Estate if she fails to pay rent. COUNT VI – CONVERSION 60. Plaintiffs incorporate each of the prior allegations by this reference except when plead in the alternative. 61. Plaintiff Weston Scott’s 4-wheeler and side-by-side are located on the Homeplace premises. 62. Defendant locked Plaintiff out of the Homeplace and refuses to return his personal property. 63. Defendant has converted Plaintiff’s personal property, and Plaintiff Weston Scott is entitled to judgment for monetary damages in excess of $10,000.00. PRAYER WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiffs pray for the following relief: a. An order removing Defendant as Trustee and appointing Plaintiffs as co-trustees; b. A temporary injunction prohibiting any trustee from disposing of estate property until an accounting and inventory is approved by the Court; c. Orders ejecting Defendant from the Homeplace; d. Declaratory judgment declaring the rights of the parties, construing the terms of the Trust, and enforcing the Trust; e. Judgment terminating Defendant’s lease; f. Orders directing the Plaintiffs, as co-trustees, to liquidate the Trust estate, pay the Trust’s debts, and distribute the balance of the Trust estate; g. Orders distributing the Trust estate to the beneficiaries, approving the Co-Trustees’ accounts, and discharging the Co-Trustees; h. Judgment for Plaintiffs’ damages in excess of $75,000.00 and for Plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and costs; i. Orders surcharging Defendant’s share of the Trust in an amount commensurate with Defendant’s breach of trust; j. Judgement for conversion damages; and k. for all other relief the Court believes appropriate. By: ________________________________ Bryce P. Harp OBA # 30869 HARP LAW 33 W. 3rd Street Grove, Oklahoma 74344 Telephone: (918) 786-0500 [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiffs ATTORNEY LIEN CLAIMED