CRAZY CIVIL COURT ← Back
KAY COUNTY • CS-2026-00182

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC v. Chystal Reilly

Filed: Mar 9, 2026
Type: CS

What's This Case About?

Let’s get one thing straight: someone in Oklahoma is being sued over $1,144.75. Yes, that’s one thousand one hundred forty-four dollars and seventy-five cents — less than the cost of a decent used washer-dryer set, less than a plane ticket to Cabo, less than what some people drop on brunch in a month — and yet here we are, in the hallowed halls of the District Court of Kay County, where legal drama unfolds over a sum so small it could’ve been paid off with a single Amazon gift card and a sigh. But no. Instead, we’ve got lawyers, a verified statement, a deputy court clerk named Marilee (bless her), and a full-blown petition that reads like a Shakespearean tragedy if Shakespeare were sponsored by a debt collection agency.

So who are these players in this high-stakes game of financial chicken? On one side: Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC — not a rogue band of bounty hunters, but a professional debt buyer based in Virginia with a name that sounds like a hedge fund’s rejected side hustle. They don’t issue credit cards. They don’t hand out cash. What they do is buy up other people’s bad debts — the forgotten balances, the ghost accounts, the “I’ll-pay-that-when-I-win-the-lottery” promises — for pennies on the dollar, then try to collect the full amount like they’ve been wronged personally. It’s like buying a haunted house at auction and then suing the ghost for unpaid rent. And representing them? Rausch Sturm LLP, a law firm whose entire tagline might as well be “We sue people so someone else doesn’t have to.” Their guy on the case is Nicholas Tait, OBA #227392, who signed this petition not in excitement, not in passion, but in Tulsa, Oklahoma, which he felt the need to specify, as if there’s another Tulsa somewhere in the multiverse where debt collection laws are more forgiving.

On the other side: Chystal Reilly. Just Chystal. No middle name dropped in the filing, no LLC after her name, no army of attorneys. Just one woman, presumably living her life in Kay County, possibly unaware that her financial past was about to come knocking with a subpoena. At some point — specifically, on or about May 29, 2022 — Chystal opened a credit card account with Credit One Bank, N.A., which is the kind of bank that sends you pre-approved offers when you sneeze near a mailbox. She used the card. She made purchases. She accrued debt. She even made a payment as recently as June 3, 2024 — less than two years ago — which means this isn’t some ancient, forgotten bill from the Obama administration. This is fresh. This is current. This is “I probably meant to deal with this but then my dog ate my router and also I got into The Bear and lost track of time” levels of recent.

But then — plot twist — she stopped paying. And on January 12, 2025, the account was closed, charged off, and deemed uncollectible by the original bank. That’s when the vultures — sorry, debt purchasers — moved in. Credit One sold the debt to Portfolio Recovery Associates, who then dusted it off, slapped their logo on it, and said, “Ah yes, this one still has legs.” And now, here we are. February 24, 2026. The lawsuit is filed. The machine grinds on.

Now, what exactly is Portfolio Recovery Associates asking for? Let’s break it down, because this is where it gets juicy. They want $1,144.75. That’s the principal balance. Not a penny more, not a penny less. They’re not asking for punitive damages — no, they’re not trying to punish Chystal for her sins. They’re not demanding an injunction — nobody’s putting a lien on her toaster. But they are asking for costs, post-judgment interest, and “all subsequent costs,” which is legalese for “if we win, you’re paying for our coffee, our parking, and possibly our therapist.” Oh, and get this — they also want the court to order the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission to hand over Chystal’s employment history. That’s right. They’re not just after the money. They want to know where she works. They want to know how she’s paid. They want to know if she’s got a side hustle selling candles on Etsy. This isn’t just a debt collection lawsuit. This is a full background check disguised as a civil filing.

And let’s talk about that $1,144.75. Is it a lot? Is it a little? Well, for a lawsuit, it’s peanuts. Most attorneys wouldn’t even return a call for that amount — unless, of course, they specialize in debt collection and charge the plaintiff nothing upfront because they’re paid by volume, like a legal assembly line. For Chystal, it might be a stretch. For Portfolio Recovery, it’s probably not even a rounding error. They likely bought this debt for less than $200. So even if Chystal offers to settle for $600, they’re still making bank. But they don’t want settlement. They want judgment. They want a court order. They want the power to garnish wages, freeze bank accounts, and send Chystal’s credit score into a nosedive. All for the price of a decent laptop.

Now, here’s our take: the most absurd part of this whole saga isn’t that someone’s being sued over $1,144.75. We’ve seen stranger things. No, the real kicker is the theater of it all. The verified statement under penalty of perjury. The formal request for employment records. The dramatic “WHEREFORE” that sounds like it belongs in a divorce decree, not a credit card balance dispute. This is civil war over a debt so small that if Chystal had just paid it before the Super Bowl, she could’ve avoided the whole mess. But now? Now she’s got to show up in court, or hire a lawyer, or file an answer, or just hope the judge has mercy on her soul.

And yet… we’re rooting for Chystal. Not because she’s innocent. Not because debt doesn’t matter. But because there’s something deeply dystopian about a system where a faceless corporation buys your forgotten bill, hires a law firm to sue you, and demands your work history like they’re MI6, all for a figure that wouldn’t even cover the attorney’s hourly rate if this were any other kind of case. This isn’t justice. This is bureaucracy weaponized. This is the legal equivalent of sending a SWAT team to recover a library book.

So here’s to you, Chystal Reilly. May your defense be strong, your credit score resilient, and may you one day look back on this and laugh — preferably after winning a TikTok fame from “that time I got sued over a credit card and it went viral.” And to Portfolio Recovery Associates: y’all do what y’all do. But maybe next time, just send a nicer reminder email. Or a meme. We hear those work better than subpoenas.

Case Overview

$1,145 Demand Petition
Jurisdiction
District Court of Kay County, Oklahoma
Relief Sought
$1,145 Monetary
Plaintiffs
Defendants
Claims
# Cause of Action Description
1 Debt Collection Plaintiff seeks payment of debt of $1,144.75

Petition Text

390 words
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF KAY COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC ) ) ) MARILEE THORNTON, Com. Clerk vs. ) BY DEPUTY ) CHRYSTAL REILLY ) DEFENDANT(S). ) PETITION COMES NOW the Plaintiff, by and through its attorneys, RAUSCH STURM LLP, and for cause of action against the Defendant alleges and states the following: 1. Plaintiff is duly and legally organized and is authorized to transact business in the State of Oklahoma. 2. On or about May 29, 2022, Defendant(s) opened a credit account with CREDIT ONE BANK, N.A. ("Original Creditor"). 3. Defendant(s) used the account and thereby became obligated to pay the balance accrued. Defendant's(s') last payment towards the balance occurred on or about June 3, 2024. Defendants thereafter defaulted on Defendant's(s') obligation. 4. On or about January 12, 2025, based on Defendant's failure to pay, Defendant's account, then numbered ************8029, was closed and/or charged. The account balance remained due and owing by Defendant. 5. The Original Creditor assigned its rights in Defendant's account to Plaintiff. Plaintiff is the current holder of Defendant's account, and is the sole proper party in interest to bring this lawsuit and to whom the debt is owed. 6. The balance remaining on the credit account, $1,144.75, is presently due and payable in full to Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendant(s) in the sum of $1,144.75, plus costs, post-judgment interest, and for all subsequent costs; that the Court order the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission (OESC) to produce in writing the employment history for the Defendant for the period specified in Plaintiff's request; and for such other and further relief as this Court may deem equitable, just, and proper. RAUSCH STURM LLP ATTORNEYS IN THE PRACTICE OF DEBT COLLECTION By: Nicholas Tait, OBA #22739 2 Account Representative Contact Information: (833) 899-0421 ATTORNEY'S LIEN CLAIMED Mailing Address: 300 N. Executive Drive, Suite 200 Brookfield WI 53005 (877) 215-2552 TTY: 711 Fax: (855) 272-3575 [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF VERIFIED STATEMENT OF COUNSEL I, the undersigned counsel for Plaintiff, pursuant to Oklahoma Statutes Title 12, section 426, state under penalty of perjury under the laws of Oklahoma that the statements made in the foregoing Petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Signed 02/24/2026 , in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Nicholas Tait, OBA #22739 2 This is a communication from a debt collector. This communication is an attempt to collect a debt and any information obtained from this communication will be used for that purpose. Our File No. 5325699
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.