CJ-2026-00013 - Martin A. Clark v. John Evans

What's This Case About?

Let’s be real: when you hear “civil lawsuit,” you probably don’t expect a story involving horse boarding fees, a trust named after a ranch, and neighbors who went from handshake deal to courtroom enemies over a pony named Cooper. But welcome to McClain County, Oklahoma, where one failed real estate and equine transaction has spiraled into a $108,523.13 legal showdown — because apparently, nothing says “I’m serious about my horse” like suing someone for unpaid installments, farrier bills, and dental care for a pony you don’t even own anymore.

So who are these people? On one side, we’ve got Martin and Martha Clark — longtime residents of McClain County, living what we can only assume is a quiet, rural life involving property, possibly goats, and definitely more drama than they signed up for. Then there’s Schelly A. Bankston, also of McClain County, who — based on the filing — seems to be the designated horse person in this saga. She’s the one with the vet bills, the farrier receipts, and the emotional labor of keeping a horse named Cooper alive and hoof-healthy while waiting for someone else to pay up. On the other side: John Evans, a man who lives just over the county line in Cleveland County, and his legal alter ego, the Running W. Family Trust — which sounds less like a financial vehicle and more like a Western movie villain’s secret lair. The relationship between these parties appears to have started neighborly enough — Evans approached the Clarks in November 2023 about buying some land and, oh by the way, also purchasing a horse from Bankston. Seems simple. Until it wasn’t.

What happened? Buckle up, because this is where things go from “friendly rural transaction” to “we need lawyers and possibly an arbitrator for horse custody.” The deal, as allegedly agreed upon after dozens of extensions (yes, they kept pushing the deadline like a couple rescheduling their wedding due to a global pandemic), was finally formalized on April 5, 2025. According to the contract, Evans and his trust would pay the Clarks $3,000 a month for 17 months — totaling $51,000 — for the real property. But here’s the kicker: if they didn’t wrap up payments by April 30, 2025? The monthly amount kept going, racking up another $3,000 per month in additional installments. That’s not just a late fee — that’s a financial treadmill set to “sprint.”

Meanwhile, Bankston wasn’t just selling the horse — she was boarding it. And apparently, Cooper the horse has a lifestyle that would make a trust fund baby blush. The deal required Evans to pay Bankston $18,000 for boarding plus $1,350 every month after April 30, 2025. Oh, and don’t forget the out-of-pocket expenses — things like farrier visits (that’s hoof care, for the cityfolk), dental cleanings (yes, horses get those), vaccinations, and — in the event of a worst-case scenario — body disposal. Because nothing says “I love my horse” like pre-negotiating its funeral costs. Bankston claims she’s already shelled out $4,127.67 on Cooper’s behalf, and no, Evans has not reimbursed her. At all.

By April 30, 2025, the tab was already piling up: $51,675 owed to the Clarks, $21,000 to Bankston. The contract said everything had to be paid in full by June 30, 2025. It wasn’t. Not even close. The plaintiffs say they tried to avoid court — sending a formal demand letter on January 2, 2026, giving Evans 14 days to cough up the cash. Silence. Crickets. No check. No apology. No “Hey, my horse died and we had to cremate him in a private ceremony at dawn.” Nothing. So now we’re here: District Court in McClain County, with a jury trial demanded, because apparently someone wants twelve of their peers to decide whether Cooper’s dental work was worth $1,350 a month.

So why are they in court? Legally speaking, the plaintiffs are making four big claims. First: breach of contract — meaning, “you signed a deal, you didn’t pay, now we want our money.” Second: accounting — which sounds boring, but in legal terms means “we don’t trust you, so we want you to show us every penny you owe and prove you didn’t hide anything.” Third: unjust enrichment — a fancy way of saying “you got stuff (a property interest, a boarded horse) without paying for it, and that’s not fair.” And fourth: enforcement of lien and foreclosure — which is where it gets spicy. Because Bankston is claiming she has a legal lien on Evans’ personal property — possibly including Cooper himself — and if he doesn’t pay, she wants the court’s permission to sell that property to cover what he owes. So yes, if this goes south, Cooper could end up auctioned off like a used lawnmower on Facebook Marketplace. “Slightly used, good with kids, needs dental.”

What do they want? $108,523.13 in total — $75,000 for the Clarks, $33,498.13 for Bankston — plus interest, attorney fees, and the sweet, sweet satisfaction of winning in court. Is that a lot for a land-and-horse deal gone wrong? Well, the original property sale was $51,000. The boarding and extras ballooned from $18,000 to over $33,000. So yes, the amount they’re seeking is now more than double the original purchase price — thanks to those never-ending monthly charges and mounting expenses. It’s like if you bought a used car, agreed to pay $300 a month, missed a payment, and suddenly owed $60,000 because the seller decided you now owe for every oil change and tire rotation in perpetuity. It’s aggressive. It’s creative. It’s either brilliant or bonkers.

Our take? Look, we’re not here to judge people’s horse passions — Cooper may very well be the Picasso of ponies. But the most absurd part of this whole mess isn’t the dental bills or the trust named like a saloon from Yellowstone. It’s the timeline. This deal was supposed to close in November 2023. Then it got extended dozens of times. Then they signed a contract in April 2025 — with a deadline of April 30, 2025. That’s not a deadline. That’s a suggestion. And yet, somehow, everyone acted shocked when payments didn’t happen. Did no one think to say, “Hey, if we’re already two years late, maybe this deal isn’t working?” Instead, they doubled down — adding escalating penalties, boarding fees, and legal liens on a horse that may or may not still be alive, healthy, or even in the same county.

We’re rooting for the horse. Seriously. Cooper’s just trying to eat grass and not get sued. If there’s a custody agreement in the final judgment, we hope it includes a clause: “Cooper gets treats, regular grooming, and zero involvement in future real estate transactions.” Because at this point, he’s the only one who hasn’t messed anything up.

And remember — we’re entertainers, not lawyers. But if you’re buying a horse in Oklahoma, maybe get it in writing. And maybe don’t let the boarding fees exceed the price of a small SUV.

Case Overview

$108,523 Demand Jury Trial Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Micah L. Adkison

Adkison Law Firm

Relief Sought

$108,523 Monetary

Plaintiffs

Martin A. Clark individual
Rep: Micah L. Adkison, OBA #33107
Martha F. Clark individual
Rep: Micah L. Adkison, OBA #33107
Schelly A. Bankston individual
Rep: Micah L. Adkison, OBA #33107

Defendants

John Evans individual
Running W. Family Trust c/o John Evans business

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	breach of contract	Plaintiffs allege Defendants failed to make payments under a contract for the purchase of real property and a horse.
2	accounting	Plaintiffs seek an accounting to determine the amount of damages due to them.
3	unjust enrichment	Plaintiffs allege Defendants were unjustly enriched by benefiting from the contract without paying Plaintiffs.
4	enforcement of lien and foreclosure	Plaintiffs seek to foreclose on a lien on Defendants' personal property to satisfy their damages.

Petition Text

1,257 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR MCCLAIN COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA MARTIN A. CLARK, MARTHA F. CLARK, AND SCHELLY A. BANKSTON Plaintiffs, v. JOHN EVANS AND RUNNING W. FAMILY TRUST c/o JOHN EVANS, Defendants. PETITION Plaintiffs, Martin A. Clark, Martha F. Clark, (collectively, "The Clarks"), and Schelly A. Bankston ("Bankston") (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), for their claims against Defendants, John Evans ("Evans") and Running W. Family Trust c/o John Evans (collectively, "Defendants"), allege and state as follows: PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE 1. Plaintiff Martin A. Clark is an individual who is domiciled and resides in McClain County, State of Oklahoma. 2. Plaintiff Martha F. Clark is an individual who is domiciled and resides in McClain County, State of Oklahoma. 3. Plaintiff Schelly A. Bankston is an individual who is domiciled and resides in McClain County, State of Oklahoma. 4. Upon information and belief, Defendant Evans is an individual who is domiciled and resides in Cleveland County, State of Oklahoma. 5. Upon information and belief, Defendant Running W. Family Trust c/o John Evans is a legal trust in the care of an individual who is domiciled and resides in Cleveland County, Oklahoma. 6. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this lawsuit. 7. Venue is proper pursuant to the facts of this lawsuit. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 8. Plaintiffs restate and reallege the foregoing allegations and incorporate the same herein by reference. 9. November 2023, Evans approached Plaintiffs to purchase certain real property from The Clarks and a horse from Bankston. 10. After dozens of extensions, on or about April 5, 2025, Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into a written agreement ("Contract") pursuant to which Defendants agreed to make certain payments to Plaintiffs. 11. The Contract further provides for the boarding of one horse ("Cooper"), owned by Defendants, and reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with said horse. 12. Under the terms of the Contract, Defendants agreed to pay The Clarks monthly installments of $3,000.00 for 17 months, totaling $51,000.00, plus an additional $3,000.00 per month for each month after April 30, 2025. 13. Defendants further agreed to pay Bankston $18,000.00 for the boarding of Cooper, plus an additional monthly payment of $1,350.00 for each month after April 30, 2025. 14. Defendants also agreed to reimburse Bankston for out-of-pocket expenses related to the care of Cooper, including an initial payment of $3,000.00, together with any additional costs incurred for farrier services, veterinary care, dental care, vaccinations, or body disposal in the event of death. Bankston’s current out-of-pocket expenses are $4,127.67. 15. As of April 30, 2025, Defendants owed an outstanding balance of $51,675.00 to the Clarks and $21,000 to Bankston. 16. Payment of all balances was due no later than June 30, 2025, pursuant to the Contract. 17. Defendants have not made the payments. 18. The balances due to Plaintiffs constitute open accounts, Defendants’ lack of payment results in the continuous accrual of damages. 19. In an effort to avoid the need for filing this action, on January 2, 2026, Plaintiffs caused a letter (the “Demand Letter”) to be served upon Defendants. 20. The Demand Letter set forth details regarding the alleged breach and requested that a sum certain be paid no later than fourteen (14) days from the date thereof. 21. Defendants did not respond to Plaintiffs’ Demand Letter. 22. All conditions precedent have been satisfied. BREACH OF CONTRACT 23. Plaintiffs restate and reallege the foregoing allegations and incorporate the same herein by reference. 24. Plaintiffs and Defendants formed a contract for the purchase of real property, provide for the boarding of one horse, and reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with said horse. 25. Defendants breached the contract by not making payment.. 26. Plaintiffs have suffered substantial and ongoing damages including on an open account as a proximate result of the breach, the totals are currently assessed as follows: a. To date, $75,000.00 to Martin A. Clark and Martha F. Clark; and b. To date, $33,498.13 to Schelly A. Bankston. 27. Plaintiffs are entitled to Judgment in their favor and declaring as follows: a. That Defendants have breached the agreement by not making the required payments under the terms of the contract; b. That Defendants owe damages currently assessed as: (i) $75,000.00 to The Clarks, and (ii) $33,498.13 to Bankston, with such amounts continuing to accrue, together with pre- and post-Judgment interest as allowed by statute; and c. Awarding reasonable attorney fees as allowed by law. ACCOUNTING 28. Plaintiffs restate and reallege the foregoing allegations and incorporate the same herein by reference. 29. Plaintiffs are entitled to an accounting to determine a liquidated amount of damages to be paid to them by Defendants as of the date of Judgment. 30. Defendant should be ordered to account to Plaintiffs for all benefits Defendants, or either of them, have received from Plaintiffs stemming from his continuing breach of contract. UNJUST ENRICHMENT 31. Plaintiffs restate and reallege the foregoing allegations and incorporate the same herein by reference. 32. Plaintiffs entered into an agreement with Defendants with a reasonable expectation of being compensated. 33. Defendants knowingly accepted the benefits of the agreement with Plaintiffs, and it would be unfair and unjust for them to retain said benefits without Plaintiffs being paid. 34. Plaintiffs are entitled to Judgment in their favor, as against Defendants, awarding Plaintiffs a sum equal to the amounts Defendants have been unjustly enriched, statutory interest thereon, recovery of Plaintiffs’ reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees, and all other and further relief to which the Court deem Plaintiffs to be entitled at law or in equity. ENFORCEMENT OF LIEN AND FORECLOSURE 35. Plaintiffs restate and reallege the foregoing allegations and incorporate the same herein by reference. 36. Plaintiffs have a statutory lien upon Defendants’ animal(s) and/or other personal property which remain upon Plaintiffs’ property and are entitled to an order permitting the foreclosure thereon. 37. Plaintiffs request an order authorizing the foreclosure and sale of Defendants’ animal(s) and/or other personal property in order to satisfy their damages. DEMAND In consideration of the foregoing, Plaintiffs demand Judgment as follows: A. On the claim for breach of contract, Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs Martin and Martha Clark as against Defendants awarding the amount of $75,000.00 currently due on the open account, together with all additional amounts accruing under the account, pre- and post-Judgment interest as allowed by statute, plus any and all costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees recoverable at law; B. On the claim for breach of contract, Judgment in favor of Plaintiff Bankston as against Defendants awarding the amount of $33,498.13 currently due on the open account, together with all additional amounts accruing under the account, pre- and post-Judgment interest as allowed by statute, plus any and all costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees recoverable at law; C. On the claim for an accounting, an Order directing Defendants to account to Plaintiffs for all benefits Defendants, or either of them, have received from Plaintiffs stemming from his continuing breach of contract; D. On the claim for unjust enrichment, Judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor, as against Defendants, awarding Plaintiffs a sum equal to the amounts Defendants have been unjustly enriched, statutory interest thereon, recovery of Plaintiffs’ reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees, and all other and further relief to which the Court deem Plaintiffs to be entitled at law or in equity; E. On the claim for enforcement of lien and foreclosure, an Order authorizing the foreclosure and sale of Defendants’ animal(s) and/or other personal property in order to satisfy their damages; and F. Upon all claims, Judgment, and all such other and further relief to which the Court deem Plaintiffs to be entitled at law or in equity. Respectfully submitted, Micah L. Adkison, OBA #33107 Hamilton Lee Spicer, OBA #36797 ADKISON LAW FIRM ONE LEADERSHIP SQUARE 211 N. Robinson, Ave., Ste. 1350 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Phone: (405) 259-7123 [email protected] [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS ATTORNEY LIEN CLAIMED JURY DEMANDED