CJ-2026-1573 - Daniel Altman and Victoria Altman v. City of Oklahoma City

What's This Case About?

Let’s get one thing straight: this isn’t just a plumbing problem. This is war. A full-blown, stench-filled, biohazard-level standoff between two Oklahoma City homeowners and the entire municipal government, all because raw sewage decided to treat their backyard like an all-you-can-poop buffet. Imagine waking up one morning to find your property transformed into a toxic swamp of human waste—flooding your land, stinking up your life, and turning your home into something straight out of a post-apocalyptic horror flick. That’s not a nightmare. That’s Tuesday, June 8, 2025, for Daniel and Victoria Altman.

Now, who are these poor souls? The Altmans are not city slickers chasing drama—they’re homeowners in Oklahoma City, living at 6801 Elk Canyon Road, minding their own business, paying their taxes, and, yes, dutifully sending in their monthly sewer fees like good citizens. Meanwhile, on the other side of this very smelly aisle? The City of Oklahoma City itself—the defendant, the sewer system owner, and, according to the Altmans, the proud architect of one of the most disgustingly avoidable disasters in recent memory. These aren’t neighbors feuding over a fence line or a dog barking at 3 a.m. This is a homeowner versus an entire bureaucracy, and the battleground is literally their flooded, feces-soaked yard.

So what exactly went down? According to the petition, on or about June 8, 2025—coincidentally the same day this lawsuit was filed, which we can only assume means the Altmans were so done they lawyered up mid-muck—their property was inundated with raw sewage. Not a little trickle. Not a “maybe call a plumber” situation. We’re talking full-scale environmental contamination. The kind of event that requires hazmat suits, not just rubber gloves. The Altmans claim the city’s sewer system, which it exclusively controls, failed spectacularly—either due to blockage, poor maintenance, or outright neglect—and unleashed a torrent of human waste onto their land. And here’s the kicker: it’s not just a one-and-done mess. The filing says the nuisance is “continuing and ongoing.” That means, as of the day they sued, the sewage was still flooding their property. Try grilling burgers with that aroma wafting through the air. Try letting your dog outside. Try existing.

Now, you might think, “Well, okay, gross—but why sue?” Ah, but the Altmans aren’t just mad. They’re strategic. They’ve hit the City of Oklahoma City with not one, not two, but three legal claims—and each one is a different flavor of municipal accountability. First up: nuisance. In plain English? The city created a condition so awful, so disruptive, and so hazardous that it interfered with the Altmans’ ability to use and enjoy their own property. It’s not just about the smell (though, let’s be honest, that’s probably unbearable). It’s about the damage, the health risks, the emotional toll, and the fact that their home may now be worth less because, well, it’s been marinated in sewage. They’re asking the court not only for money to fix things but also to abate the public nuisance—meaning they want the court to force the city to clean this mess up, once and for all.

Second claim: negligence. This one’s simpler. The Altmans are saying, “Hey, you’re in charge of the sewer system. You knew—or should’ve known—how to maintain it. You failed. And because of that failure, our lives are now a biohazard zone.” They’re invoking res ipsa loquitur, which sounds like a Harry Potter spell but actually means “the thing speaks for itself.” In legal terms, it suggests the accident wouldn’t have happened without someone screwing up—so the burden shifts to the city to explain how it wasn’t their fault. Good luck with that one, City Hall.

Third: breach of contract. Yes, believe it or not, there’s a contract here. Every time the Altmans paid their sewer bill, they entered into an unwritten (but legally binding) agreement: “We pay you, you keep the poop in the pipes.” The city took their money. It failed to deliver the service. That’s breach 101. They’re not just suing for property damage—they’re suing for broken promises. And honestly? We’re kind of here for it.

Now, what do they want? $75,000. Is that a lot? For a sewer backup? Depends. If we’re talking about a single clogged pipe and a quick cleanup, maybe overkill. But we’re not. We’re talking about ongoing sewage flooding, structural damage, potential mold, contaminated soil, professional remediation, medical testing (because, again, raw sewage), and possibly long-term devaluation of their home. Add in emotional distress, inconvenience, and the sheer trauma of living next to a municipal dump site, and $75K starts to sound… reasonable. Not extravagant. Not greedy. Just enough to make it right. And let’s not forget—they’re also demanding attorney’s fees, costs, and interest. This isn’t a get-rich-quick scheme. It’s a survival strategy.

So what’s our take? Look, we’re not saying every plumbing issue deserves a courtroom showdown. But when a city—a government entity with engineers, budgets, and entire departments dedicated to infrastructure—lets a sewer system collapse so catastrophically that it turns private property into a public health hazard, and then denies responsibility while the sludge keeps flowing? That’s not just incompetence. That’s a slap in the face to every taxpayer who ever trusted their local government to do the bare minimum: keep the waste where it belongs.

The most absurd part? That the Altmans even have to sue. You’d think the city would show up with cleanup crews, an apology, and a plan. Instead, they got a denial and a continuing flood of… well, you know. It’s the sheer gall of it. The audacity to accept payment for a service, fail to deliver, and then pretend it’s not a big deal. If this were a restaurant, they’d be shut down. If it were a landlord, they’d be in court for habitability violations. But because it’s a city? They get to play hardball—until someone like the Altmans says, “Nope. Not on my lawn. Literally.”

We’re rooting for the Altmans. Not because they want $75,000. But because they’re demanding accountability in a system that too often operates on “oops, our bad” and walks away. This isn’t just about sewage. It’s about respect. It’s about the idea that when you pay for a service, you should get it. And it’s about the unspoken rule that no American homeowner should have to live like they’re starring in a dystopian reality show called Who Wants to Be a Millionaire… in Toxins?

So bring on the jury trial. Bring the hazmat testimony. Bring the city engineers sweating under oath. Because if there’s one thing we’ve learned from civil court drama, it’s this: sometimes, justice doesn’t just taste sweet. It smells… less terrible than raw sewage.

Case Overview

$75,000 Demand Jury Trial Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Jim Buxton and Spencer Habluetzel

Buxton Law Group

Relief Sought

$75,000 Monetary

Plaintiffs

Daniel Altman and Victoria Altman individual
Rep: Jim Buxton and Spencer Habluetzel

Defendants

City of Oklahoma City government

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	nuisance	raw sewage flooded plaintiffs' property causing damage
2	negligence	defendant's actions resulted in property damage
3	breach of contract	defendant failed to provide sewer services as agreed

Petition Text

1,040 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA DANIEL ALTMAN, AND VICTORIA ALTMAN, Plaintiffs, vs. CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY, Defendant. PETITION COMES NOW, Plaintiffs, Daniel and Victoria Altman, (hereinafter "Plaintiffs") and present their causes of action pursuant to common law and pursuant to the Governmental Tort Claims Act, as codified in 51 O.S. § 151, et. seq. against the City of Oklahoma City, (hereinafter "Defendant"). The Plaintiffs allege and further state the following: PARTIES 1. That Plaintiffs are the residents and owners of the property located at 6801 Elk Canyon Rd., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73162. 2. That the Defendant is organized and existing under the laws of the State of Oklahoma, located and doing business in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, and is the owner of the sewer system located within the boundaries of said municipality. 3. That all relevant events occurred in the City of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, therefore, jurisdiction and venue of this Court is proper. 4. The sewer system is solely within the exclusive control of Defendant. FACTS 5. At all times material, Defendant is responsible for the maintenance, repair, and operation of the above-described sewer system. 6. At all times material, Defendant had a contractual agreement and a duty to provide sewer services to the Plaintiffs in exchange for payment. Defendant’s duties also include the duty of “good faith and fair dealing”; duty to perform with “care, skill, reasonable expediency, and faithfulness”; and duty to perform “skillfully, carefully, diligently and in a workmanlike manner.” 7. That on or about June 8, 2025, the property located at 6801 Elk Canyon Rd., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73162 was flooded with raw sewage, creating a nuisance and causing substantial property damage. 8. The injury was caused by the sewer system and actions of Defendant. 9. Such injury does not normally occur absent negligence of Defendant. 10. The Plaintiffs have properly served the Defendant with a Notice of Tort Claim for the sewer back-up event, and the Defendant has denied the claims. However, the nuisance is continuing and ongoing to date. 11. That Plaintiffs are in full compliance with the Governmental Tort Claims Act. (51 O.S. § 151, et. seq.) FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION - NUISANCE COMES NOW Plaintiffs, for their first cause of action against the Defendant, restate, adopt, and re-allege the above allegations as stated in paragraphs (1) through (11) and further allege and state as follows: 12. That Defendant had a duty to operate and maintain the City’s sewer system in a manner so as not to constitute a nuisance to the general public, including Plaintiffs. 13. That Defendant’s actions and/or inactions failed to uphold the requisite duty, the result of which amounts to a nuisance, both temporary and permanent in nature, and allows Plaintiffs to recover for the following: (a) to restore their land, improvements to personal property from temporary damages; (b) to restore land from permanent damage, including diminution in value to their land, improvements, and personal property; (c) for annoyance, inconvenience, and discomfort resulting from Defendant’s creation of a nuisance; and, (d) for monetary amounts spent and amounts that will be spent in the future in testing and investigating to determine the nature and extent of damage caused by Defendant’s creation of a nuisance. 14. The Defendant knew or should have known through actual and/or constructive knowledge that the failure to uphold its duty to Plaintiffs would result in a nuisance and accompanying damages. 15. That the manner in which the sewer system is maintained and operated constitutes a continuing and ongoing nuisance, both private and public. 16. Plaintiffs also seek abatement of the public nuisance. 17. That as a result of Defendant’s creation of a nuisance, the Plaintiffs have suffered harm in an amount in excess of SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($75,000.00). SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION – NEGLIGENCE COMES NOW Plaintiffs, for their second cause of action against the Defendant restate, adopt and re-allege the following as stated in paragraphs (1) through (17) and further allege and state as follows: 18. That Defendant breached its duty, and such breach was the direct and proximate result of acts and omissions of negligence by the Defendant, its agents, servants, and employees in the following manners: (a) In negligently maintaining and operating the sewer system by allowing it to become obstructed in the first instance; (b) In failing to properly perform maintenance on the sewer system; (c) In the negligent manner and form of the work undertaken on the sewer system and the continued negligent operation of the sewer system; (d) that res ipsa loquitur applies to this case. 19. That as a result of Defendant’s negligence, the Plaintiffs have suffered harm in an amount in excess of SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($75,000.00). THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION- BREACH OF CONTRACT COMES NOW Plaintiffs, for their third cause of action against the Defendant restate, adopt and re-allege the following as stated in paragraphs (1) through (19) and further allege and state as follows: 20. The parties formed a contract for sewer services whereby Defendant would provide sewer services in exchange for payment. 21. That Defendant breached the contract, and such breach was the direct and proximate result of acts and omissions of the Defendant, its agents, servants, and employees in the following manners: (a) In breaching its duties and operating the sewer system by allowing it to become obstructed in the first instance; (b) In failing to properly perform maintenance on the sewer system; (c) In the manner and form of the work undertaken on the sewer system and the continued improper operation of the sewer system. (d) In failing to properly provide services that Plaintiffs have paid for to the City. 22. That as a result of Defendant’s breach, the Plaintiffs have suffered harm to property and consequential damages in an amount in excess of SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($75,000.00). WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, pray that this Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant and assess compensatory damages as associated with the negligence and acts creating a nuisance to Plaintiffs in violation of their statutory rights under the laws of Oklahoma, together with pre and post-judgment interest, costs, attorney’s fees, and such relief as this Court may deem equitable and appropriate. Respectfully submitted, Jim Buxton, OBA #19057 Spencer Habluetzel, OBA #32001 BUXTON LAW GROUP 511 Couch Drive, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 604-5577 – Telephone (405) 604-5578 – Facsimile [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiffs ATTORNEY’S LIEN CLAIMED JURY TRIAL DEMANDED