CJ-2026-1064 - Powell Aircraft Title Service, LLC v. NTERFLYVI, LLC

What's This Case About?

Let’s talk about the time a $50,000 deposit for a plane—yes, an actual aircraft—turned into a legal free-for-all involving six parties from four different states and a U.S. territory, all because no one could figure out how to close a deal or, more importantly, who gets the money when it all goes south. This isn’t Top Gun, folks. This is Top Mess.

Enter the cast of characters: on one side, we’ve got Anthony Jenkins and his Virgin Islands-based company NTERFLYVI, LLC, the proud (paperwork-wise) owners of a shiny 2024 Tecnam P2010 Gran Lusso—basically a luxury sky chariot with GPS, leather seats, and enough horsepower to make your average Cessna feel insecure. On the other side, Anand Patel and his Nevada corporation Horizon Flights, who were apparently ready to plunk down serious cash to become the new pilots of this airborne status symbol. Between them? A broker named Aero Capital Exchange, LLC (Florida-based, because of course), possibly represented by an individual named Alex Mason, who may or may not have been acting on behalf of the company—no one’s quite sure, and honestly, at this point, we’re all just guessing. And then there’s the poor middleman caught in the crossfire: Powell Aircraft Title Service, LLC, an Oklahoma-based escrow service that just wanted to hold the money like a responsible adult and go home. Instead, they got dragged into court like the designated driver at a billionaire’s yacht party.

Here’s how this sky-high drama unfolded. On August 15, 2025, everyone signed what they thought was a binding agreement—Contract 1—for the sale of the aircraft. Standard stuff: buyer pays deposit, seller prepares plane, everyone meets at closing like civilized adults. The deposit? $50,000, wired into Powell’s escrow account by Horizon Flights. Closing date? October 25, 2025. Easy. Except… it wasn’t. For reasons the filing doesn’t specify—maybe the plane needed more oil changes than expected, maybe someone got cold feet, maybe the in-flight espresso machine was missing—no one showed up to close. So, like any group of adults who can’t admit failure, they tried again. On November 17, 2025, they signed Contract 2: the Revenge of the Paperwork. This version extended the closing to December 10, tweaked some inspection responsibilities, and—crucially—changed the rules on who gets the deposit back if things fall apart again. But here’s the kicker: no one actually closed. Again. Radio silence. Crickets. The aircraft remained grounded, the money stayed in escrow, and suddenly, everyone started pointing fingers.

Now, in a normal world, you’d think Powell Aircraft Title Service could just refund the deposit to the buyer and call it a day. But no. Because now both sides are claiming they’re entitled to the $50,000. The seller says the buyer backed out, so forfeit the deposit. The buyer says the seller couldn’t deliver, so refund it. And somewhere in the middle, Aero Capital and Alex Mason are either arguing they’re entitled to a cut, or just trying to prove they were even involved. The filing doesn’t say who’s making which claim—just that multiple parties are now demanding the money. And Powell? They’re stuck in the middle, sweating bullets, because if they give the money to the wrong person, they could get sued. If they keep it, they could get sued. If they sneeze near the account, they might get sued.

So what do they do? They file a petition for interpleader—a fancy legal Hail Mary pass that basically says, “Your Honor, we’re just the mailbox. We don’t want the money. We don’t care who gets it. We just want out before someone blames us for the downfall of aviation.” In plain English: Powell is asking the court to take the $50,000, hold it like a neutral referee, and let the real parties duke it out in court without dragging Powell into every deposition, subpoena, and passive-aggressive email chain. They’ve already pulled $500 out to cover their own escrow fees (split evenly, per the contract), moved the remaining $49,500 into a lawyer trust account, and are now begging the court to let them walk away—preferably with their legal fees covered, because hey, someone’s gotta pay for all these billable hours.

And what are they actually asking for? Not damages. Not revenge. Just to be discharged from the case. They want the court to accept the money, declare Powell innocent of all wrongdoing, and wave them off into the sunset with a “thanks for holding the bag, now scram.” The $50,000 at stake? That’s not chump change, but for a plane that likely costs millions, it’s basically the deposit on a luxury car. Still, no one wants to lose it—especially not after flying (pun intended) through multiple contracts, cross-state jurisdictions, and a signature so ambiguous it could’ve been scribbled during turbulence.

So what’s the most absurd part of all this? Is it that a six-party lawsuit erupted over a deposit that’s less than 1% of the plane’s value? Is it that no one could agree on who even signed the contract—individuals? Companies? A rogue pilot with a notary stamp? Is it that the broker’s role is so unclear they had to name both the company and the guy who maybe works there? Or is it that this entire drama could’ve been avoided with a single sentence: “I am signing this on behalf of my company”? Probably all of the above.

But here’s what we’re rooting for: Powell Aircraft Title Service. These folks were just trying to do their job—hold money, follow instructions, stay neutral. Instead, they got caught in a legal hurricane of bad drafting, delayed closings, and corporate identity confusion. They’re not the villains. They’re not even players. They’re the referees who got tackled for blowing the whistle. So while the rest of these sky-high egos argue over who flaked first, we’re sending Powell a fruit basket and a standing ovation. Because in the grand tradition of petty civil disputes, this one proves that when money changes hands, even a plane deal can crash and burn—leaving the most responsible person on the tarmac, asking, “Wait… why am I the one in court?”

Case Overview

Petition

Jurisdiction

Oklahoma District Court, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

David A. Cheek

Cheek & Falcone, PLLC

Relief Sought

Plaintiffs

Powell Aircraft Title Service, LLC business
Rep: Cheek & Falcone, PLLC

Defendants

NTERFLYVI, LLC business
Anthony Jenkins individual
Horizon Flights business
Anand Patel individual
Aero Capital Exchange, LLC business
Alex Mason individual

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	interpleader	dispute over $50,000 deposit for aircraft sale

Petition Text

969 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA POWELL AIRCRAFT TITLE SERVICE, LLC, Plaintiff, v. NTERFLYVI, LLC; ANTHONY JENKINS; HORIZON FLIGHTS; ANAND PATEL; AERO CAPITAL EXCHANGE, LLC; and ALEX MASON, Defendants. PETITION IN INTERPLEADER COMES NOW Plaintiff, Powell Aircraft Title Service, LLC (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), by and through Jordan A. Morris of CHEEK & FALCONE, PLLC, and pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2022, and for its cause of action and claim for relief against Defendants, states as follows: FACTS SUPPORTING THE CLAIM FOR RELIEF 1. Plaintiff is an Oklahoma limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Oklahoma and doing business in Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma. 2. Defendant NTERFLYVI, LLC (hereinafter “NTERFLYVI”) is a limited liability company, organized and existing under the laws of U.S. Virgin Islands. 3. On information and belief, Defendant Anthony Jenkins (“Jenkins”) is an individual residing in St. Thomas in the U.S. Virgin Islands and is doing business in the State of Oklahoma. 4. On information and belief, Defendant Horizon Flights (“Horizon”) is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Nevada. 5. On information and belief, Defendant Anand Patel (“Patel”) is an individual residing in the State of California and is doing business in the State of Oklahoma. 6. Defendant Aero Capital Exchange, LLC ("Aero") is a limited liability company, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida and is doing business in the State of Oklahoma. 7. Defendant Alex Mason ("Mason") is an individual resident of Tampa, Florida, and is doing business in the State of Oklahoma 8. On information and belief, Jenkins is the CEO of NTERFLYVI, and Patel is the President of Horizon. GROUND FOR INTERPLEADER 9. On August 15, 2025, Defendants entered into an Aircraft Purchase Agreement ("Contract 1") for the sale of a 2024 Tecnam P2010 Gran Lusso with registration N260TA (hereinafter “Aircraft”)– seller (Jenkins/ NTERFLYVI (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Seller”)), buyer (Patel/Horizon (collectively referred to as “Buyer”)) and broker Aero entered into Contract 1.1 10. According to Contract 1, the Buyer was required to deposit into Plaintiff’s deposit account $50,000.00 to confirm the intent to purchase the Aircraft (hereinafter “Deposit”). 11. Plaintiff maintains a deposit account at a financial institution in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma; and as of August 18, 2025, Defendant Horizon deposited $50,000.00 into Plaintiff’s deposit account. 12. The closing for Contract 1 was set for no later than October 25, 2025. ______________________________ 1 The August 15, 2025 contract has vague terms with the identification of Horizon and NTERFLYVI. Jenkins and Patel do sign the contract and identify themselves as CEO and President, respectively, but fail to properly make clear that they are signing on behalf of their respective businesses. It appears the intent was for these two Defendants to sign as agents of their respective businesses, but the language leaves room for interpretation; therefore, all potential parties have been included in this suit to make sure all appropriate parties are identified. Further, NTERFLYVI is the registered owner of the Aircraft according to the Secretary of State of the U.S. Virgin Islands. 13. Subsequently, the Seller and Buyer were unable to timely close on the sale of the Aircraft and entered into an Amended Aircraft Purchase Agreement ("Contract 2") on or around November 17, 2025.\footnote{Contract 2 identifies Mason as the signatory as the broker. It appears that Mason could be signing as an agent for Aero, but because this is not explicitly stated, Mason has been included in this lawsuit as a potential interested party.} 14. Contract 1 and Contract 2 are similar in almost all respects except that Contract 2 does modify terms to Deposit reimbursement eligibility, adds costs associated with inspection responsibilities, and extends the closing to December 10, 2025. 15. Subsequently, the Seller and Buyer were again unable to timely close on the sale of the Aircraft. 16. Now, the Defendants disagree on how the Deposit should be distributed. REQUEST FOR RELIEF 17. According to both Contract 1 and Contract 2, both Seller and Buyer were required to equally split Plaintiff's escrow fees. 18. Plaintiff's escrow fees are $500.00. 19. Plaintiff has transferred $49,500.00 into attorney for Plaintiff's Interest on Lawyer Trust Account ("Deposit Account"). 20. Plaintiff claims no interest in the remaining funds held in the Deposit Account and no interest in the disputes between Defendants. 21. The disputes between Defendants could subject Plaintiff to multiple and competing demands for access to and/or authority over the funds held in the Deposit Account. 22. In connection with its interpleader action, Plaintiff has been compelled to engage counsel and pay court costs for the purpose of protecting its interest arising out of the dispute set forth above. 23. In accordance with OKLA. STAT. ANN. TIT. 12, § 2022(C), the Court should permit Plaintiff to deposit the funds held in the Deposit Account with the Court Clerk and should then discharge Plaintiff from this action and any liability and award Plaintiff its attorney fees and costs. WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiff requests that it be permitted to interplead, that upon payment of the Deposit Account to the Clerk of Court that Plaintiff be discharged from this action without further liability to the parties, that Plaintiff be reimbursed for its reasonable attorney fees and costs, and that the Court enter such further orders as are just. Respectfully submitted, DAVID A. CHEEK, OBA #1638 JORDAN A. MORRIS, OBA # 31862 CHEEK & FALCONE, PLLC 6301 Waterford Blvd., Suite 320 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73118-1168 Telephone: (405) 286-9191 Facsimile: (405) 286-9670 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff VERIFICATION STATE OF OKLAHOMA ) ) ss: COUNTY OF OKLAHOMA ) Chandra Crawford, of lawful age and being first duly sworn, states that she is a representative for Plaintiff, Powell Aircraft Title Service, LLC, and she has read the foregoing Petition, that she is familiar with the contents thereof, and that the allegations set forth therein are true and correct. [Signature] Chandra Crawford Chandra Crawford, representative for Powell Aircraft Title Service, LLC SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 16th day of February 2026. [Signature] Shonna Hurt NOTARY PUBLIC My Commission # 22004543 Expires: 3/31/26 {SEAL} 10376.023v20260205-JAM.docx