CJ-2026-1753 - Sandra Biglow v. Gary Scruggs

What's This Case About?

Let’s cut straight to the wild part: a woman discovers her brother tried to rewrite their mother’s will while the 80-something-year-old with dementia was being dragged around by a guy who once pulled a gun on her husband just for trying to visit—and then the same lawyer who helped her brother change the will turned around and represented him in court. If this were a Lifetime movie, we’d accuse the writers of overdoing it. But no, folks—this is real life in Oklahoma County, where family drama has escalated to full-blown legal warfare, and the estate at stake? Reportedly worth millions. Buckle up.

Sandra Biglow and Gary Scruggs are siblings, children of an elderly woman named Lutelia Scruggs—referred to in court documents as “the Ward,” because she’s now under a guardianship due to cognitive decline. Sandra, the plaintiff, isn’t just a concerned daughter—she’s the court-appointed guardian of both her mother’s person and estate. That means she’s legally responsible for making medical, financial, and personal decisions on her mom’s behalf. Gary? Well, he was supposed to be a co-guardian. But let’s just say things got messy—so messy that he eventually stepped down after Sandra accused him of financial abuse and straight-up threatening her family with a firearm. And yes, we said a firearm. Not a sternly worded letter. A gun. As in, “Come near this house again and I’ll shoot you” kind of energy. That’s not a metaphor. That’s an allegation in a court filing. And it’s not even the wildest part.

So what exactly went down? It starts in 2017, when Lutelia and her late husband set up a solid, comprehensive estate plan with attorney Cheryl Husmann. At the time, they were both mentally sharp, and their plan was fair: their kids would inherit per stirpes—lawyer-speak for “by branch,” meaning each child gets a share, and if one predeceases them, their kids get it instead. Importantly, Sandra was named the successor trustee and power of attorney. Gary? Not so much. He was left out of the key roles. Fast forward to 2023, and Gary shows up at Husmann’s office with their mom, demanding changes to the estate plan—changes that would cut out Sandra entirely and make Gary the sole beneficiary of everything. But here’s the kicker: when Husmann asked Lutelia if she remembered meeting her back in 2017 to set up the original plan, the woman had no idea who she was. No recollection. Not even a flicker. Husmann smelled something rotten—specifically, the stench of undue influence—and refused to make the changes. Smart move.

But Gary didn’t take no for an answer. He found another attorney—one who was willing to rewrite the trust so that every single dime, every piece of property, every last scrap of the estate would go “wholly and completely” to Gary. Poof. Sandra? Erased. The rest of the family? Ghosted. And this wasn’t just a casual tweak. This was a full-scale hostile takeover of Mom’s legacy. Even weirder? The same attorney who helped Gary rewrite the will then turned around and represented him in the guardianship case—while also being supposed to represent their mother. Conflict of interest? You could wallpaper a house with that paperwork. Sandra’s legal team has already filed a motion to boot that attorney for failing to actually represent the Ward’s interests. Surprise, surprise.

And then there’s the gun incident. According to the filing, Gary had been secreting their mother away—cutting off contact, refusing visits, acting like he was guarding Fort Knox. When Sandra and her husband showed up to check on their mom, Gary allegedly pulled a firearm on them and threatened deadly force if they ever came back. Let that sink in: a man allegedly threatened his own sister with a gun over visitation rights with their elderly mother. And now he’s the one who’s supposed to inherit everything? The plot thickens like day-old gravy.

So why are we in court? Two main reasons. First, Sandra is suing for conversion by undue influence—which, in plain English, means she believes Gary manipulated their mom while she was mentally vulnerable to steal her inheritance. Oklahoma law says you can’t use pressure, manipulation, or exploitation to change someone’s will, especially if they’re old, sick, or confused. The law even gives us a checklist: Was the person in a position of trust? Did they help draft the will? Was the testator isolated? Did they cut out natural heirs? Was there no independent advice? In this case, it’s like Gary handed the court a completed bingo card. He was the only one driving Mom around. He brought her to the lawyer. He benefited exclusively. She had moderate dementia. And the lawyer? Representing him, not her. It’s not just suspicious—it’s textbook undue influence.

Second, Sandra wants a GMC Sierra back. Yes, the truck. While living with their mom, Gary used her money to buy a shiny new pickup, which is still titled in her name. Even after he was booted as co-guardian, he kept the truck and refused to give it back. So now, legally, it’s a replevin claim—fancy term for “give me back my stuff.” And sure, a truck is one thing, but symbolically? It’s the cherry on top of a sundae of entitlement. Mom didn’t buy it for him. She didn’t gift it. He just… took it. Like it was his.

Now, let’s talk money. Sandra is asking for $20,000 in damages—$10,000 compensatory, $10,000 punitive. On the surface, that might sound modest, especially if the estate is worth millions. But here’s the thing: this isn’t about the dollar amount. It’s about precedent. The compensatory damages are symbolic—acknowledging that Gary’s actions caused harm. The punitive? That’s the court’s way of saying, “We don’t care if you’re family—we will fine you for trying to strong-arm an elderly woman out of her estate.” And honestly? In a case this brazen, $20,000 feels like a slap on the wrist. But it’s not really about the cash. It’s about sending a message: you don’t rewrite your mom’s will like it’s a grocery list, and you definitely don’t pull a gun on your sister and expect to walk away with the keys to the kingdom.

Our take? The most absurd part isn’t even the gun (though, again—the gun). It’s the sheer audacity of Gary’s playbook. He sees an opening—Mom’s fading, the original plan doesn’t favor him—so he goes full corporate raider on a family estate. He finds a pliable lawyer, cuts out his sister, isolates his mom, threatens relatives, and then tries to claim the whole pie. And he almost got away with it. If Sandra hadn’t filed for guardianship when she did, we might be looking at a closed case where Gary walks off with millions, a GMC Sierra, and a clean conscience. But now? The court’s watching. The filing’s public. And if the allegations are even half true, this isn’t just a civil dispute—it’s a case study in elder exploitation.

We’re rooting for Sandra—not just because she’s the guardian, but because she’s the one trying to protect the system. She’s not trying to grab more than her share. She’s trying to restore what was supposed to happen. And in a world where family members too often turn vulture the second a parent shows signs of decline, that kind of integrity deserves more than $10,000. It deserves a medal. Or at least a restraining order and a returned truck.

Look, we’re entertainers, not lawyers. But if this case goes to trial, we’re bringing popcorn. And maybe a bulletproof vest. Just in case Gary shows up.

Case Overview

$20,000 Demand Jury Trial Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Kevin S. Taylor

Taylor Law Firm, PLLC

Relief Sought

$10,000 Monetary

$10,000 Punitive

Plaintiffs

Sandra Biglow individual
Rep: Kevin S. Taylor

Defendants

Gary Scruggs individual

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Conversion by Undue Influence	Plaintiff alleges that Defendant exerted undue influence on the Ward's estate, leading to modifications that benefit Defendant over Plaintiff.
2	Replevin	Plaintiff seeks return of a vehicle titled to the Ward, which Defendant has refused to return.

Petition Text

1,384 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA SANDRA BIGLOW, Plaintiff, vs. GARY SCRUGGS, Defendant. FILED DISTRICT COURT OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA March 9, 2026 4:50 PM RICK WARREN, COURT CLERK Case Number CJ-2026-1753 PETITION COMES NOW, Sandra Biglow, through her Attorney of Record, Kevin S. Taylor, of the Taylor Law Firm, PLLC, and in support of her Petition, she states and alleges as follows: STATEMENT OF FACTS AND RELEVANT HISTORY Guardian commenced a Guardianship matter seeking Guardianship of the Estate and Person of Lutelia Scruggs, the parties’ mother, herein referred to as “Ward” or “the Ward” in Oklahoma County Case No. PG-2023-886 on the 23rd day of October, 2023, shortly after she discovered that the Ward’s estate attorney, had declined a request of Defendant, appearing at her office with the Ward to modify the Estate Plan of the Ward solely benefiting himself and his issue. Ward’s original Estate attorney, Cheryl Husmann, of Husmann Law, declined to make the requested changes because the Ward was unable to remember having ever met with her in 2017 in order to complete the original Estate Plan, and Ms. Husmann found that to be alarming and believed that it was likely that Ms. Scruggs was subject to undue influence by Gary Scruggs, the individual who delivered Ms. Scruggs to Ms. Husmann’s office and made the appointment. Defendant nevertheless found an attorney willing to draft modifications to the Ward’s Estate Plan. The modifications to the Trust included, but were not limited to, the appointment of Gary Scruggs (instead of Guardian) as the sole successor trustee of the Ward’s Trust, a modification to the distribution of property in that the new Trust distributed all of the res of the Trust solely, “wholly and completely to Gary Scruggs.” During this time, Gary Scruggs was secreting the Ward from the Guardian. He would not allow the Guardian or her family to visit, on one occasion, pulling a gun on the Guardian and threatening deadly force should they come to visit again. The Attorney who made the changes to the Estate (purportedly with the Ward as her client) benefitting Gary Scruggs then represented Gary Scruggs in the ensuing guardianship litigation. Gary Scruggs’ attorney brought in a third attorney to represent the Ward who is the subject of a separate motion to remove due to her conflict and her failure to represent the interests of the Ward versus Gary Scruggs. Ward’s original Estate Plan, which was drafted by Ms. Husmann was completed in 2017. It was a comprehensive Estate Plan and was completed when both the Ward and her late husband were competent. Very notably, it lists the Guardian, Sandra Kaye Biglow as the successor fiduciary, trustee and Power of Attorney of both settlors, Clarence Scruggs and the Ward. Omitted as successor Trustee or Power of Attorney was Gary Scruggs. Also notably, the Trust section apportions the estate per stirpes to the remaining children of the settlors upon their deaths. The Estate Plan as revised by Gary Scruggs gives him the entirety of the Estate. Initially, the Guardianship of the Ward was contested, however, since filing, Gary Scruggs has resigned as Co-Guardian after Guardian requested that the Court remove him as Co-Guardian due to allegations of financial abuse and neglect. He did not admit the allegations. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: CONVERSION BY UNDUE INFLUENCE 1. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all of the allegations contained above as if set forth in the body hereof. 2. "A will or part of a will to be made by duress, menace, fraud or undue influence may be denied probate; and a revocation procedure by the same means may be declared void." 84 O.S. § 43. In determining whether the evidence establishes the basic facts that give rise to the presumption of undue influence, there are a number of non-exclusive factors: (1) whether the alleged influencer was or was not a natural object of the maker's bounty; (2) whether the alleged influencer was a trusted or confidential advisor or agent of the will's maker; (3) whether the alleged influencer was present and/or active in the procurement or preparation of the testamentary instrument; (4) whether the will's maker was of advanced age or impaired faculties; and (5) whether independent and disinterested advice regarding the testamentary disposition was given to its maker. In re Estate of Holcomb, 63 P.3d 9, 2002 OK 90. 3. Plaintiff's case will primarily rest on factors two through five above. The modifications to the Estate Plan were carried out by an Attorney who the Ward could only believe was representing her own interests when in actuality, she was representing the interests of Gary Scruggs. The Ward, at the time of the procurement of the Will had been diagnosed with moderate dementia. Gary Scruggs had isolated and excluded others from caring for the Ward, on one occasion, drawing a firearm on the Plaintiff's husband. Both Gary Scruggs and his attorney were no doubt advisors the Ward trusted. Gary Scruggs must have been present for the procurement of the Will, or at the very least, he provided the transportation. The Ward at the time of the procurement was not driving. The Ward was suffering from both advanced age and moderate and advancing dementia. Finally, the advice the Ward was given could not have been disinterested nor independent. It was the same attorney who drafted the changes to the Estate Plan who just weeks later was representing Gary Scruggs seeking guardianship of the Ward. 4. The facts of this case are not dissimilar from the Matter of the Estate of Maheras, 897 P.2d268, 1995 OK 40. In applying the Holcomb factors above, the Court found the burden of proof was properly shifted in a matter where a pastor, who had a close personal relationship with a testator unduly influenced testator in procurement and making of, where pastor, who was spiritual advisor and close personal friend of testator, actively participated in securing will that was economically beneficial to church by helping testator catalog assets, and lawyer who was member of church sent copy of completed will and bill for its preparation to pastor, church bus driver transported testator to lawyer's office to execute will, testator had suffered from alcoholism and was almost 90 years old at time will was executed, and testator did not receive from any person independent and disinterested advice regarding will. Allow Gary Scruggs to stand in for the role of the pastor and the bus driver in Maheras, and the facts of the cases would be nearly exactly the same. 5. Plaintiff had a right to inherit personal and real property and Defendant, through his actions, exerted undue influence on the Ward with the intent of wrongfully and permanently depriving the Plaintiff of her right to inherit said property. 6. Plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount equal to one half of the estate of the Ward upon her death in the form of a constructive trust. 7. Plaintiff is entitled to exemplary and punitive damages. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: REPLEVIN 1. During the time the Defendant resided with the Ward, he used her assets to purchase a vehicle, a GMC Sierra, which is titled to the Ward. 2. The Defendant, despite being removed as Co-Guardian of the Estate, remained in possession of said truck and has refused to return it. 3. Said truck should be ordered returned to the Estate. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff requests this Court find damages in favor of the Plaintiff against the Defendant in excess of $10,000 in the form of a constructive trust and that the Court further find that further exemplary and punitive damages should be awarded against the Defendant in excess of $10,000 and whatever further relief the Court deems just and equitable under the circumstances. Kevin S. Taylor, OBA #22743 Taylor Law Firm, PLLC 625 N.W. 13th Street Oklahoma City, OK 73103 PHONE (405) 525-2232 FAX (405) 525-2250 [email protected] ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF RULE 4 LIST OF AUTHORITIES 84 O.S. § 43 In re Estate of Holcomb, 63 P.3d 9, 2002 OK 90. Matter of the Estate of Maheras, 897 P.2d268, 1995 OK 40 VERIFICATION STATE OF OKLAHOMA ) COUNTY OF OKLAHOMA ) ss. On the 9th day of March, 2026, the undersigned, having been duly sworn states that she has reviewed the facts alleged herein and that they are true and accurate to the best of her knowledge. Sandra L. Biglow Subscribed and sworn before me this 9th day of March, 2026. NOTARY PUBLIC KEVIN S. TAYLOR NOTARY # 08004522 EXP. 05/08/28 STATE OF OKLAHOMA PUBLIC