CJ-2025-00351 - Foundation Finance Co LLC v. Mark Settle

What's This Case About?

Let’s get one thing straight: nobody expects a $38,000 debt collection lawsuit to be dramatic. But when you throw in military protections, a shadowy finance company, and a guy named Mark Settle—yes, Settle—who may or may not have been on active duty while allegedly racking up this debt, you’ve got the legal equivalent of a daytime soap opera with better paperwork.

Meet Foundation Finance Co LLC, a company so aggressively generic it sounds like it was named by an AI trained on mortgage documents and late-night infomercials. Based in Wisconsin but filing suit in Grady County, Oklahoma, they claim to be in the business of lending money and, more importantly, collecting it—preferably with interest, fees, and the full weight of the court system behind them. On the other side of this legal ledger is Mark Settle, a man whose name suggests both a peaceful resolution and a deeply unfortunate pun waiting to happen. He lives on State Highway 152 in Minco, Oklahoma—a quiet town where the biggest drama is usually whether the Dairy Queen runs out of blizzards before the rodeo ends. But now, Mark is at the center of a financial showdown involving nearly $38,500, which, let’s be honest, is way more than a new truck and a lifetime supply of beef jerky.

So what happened? Well, according to the petition, Mark entered into a “credit agreement” with Foundation Finance Co LLC—fancy legal speak for “he borrowed money and promised to pay it back.” The details of the loan? How it was used? Whether it was for a boat, a medical emergency, or a failed attempt to start a cat yoga studio? The filing doesn’t say. All we know is that Mark allegedly failed to make good on his promise, and now the company wants its money. Not a cent less than $38,341.98, to be exact—down to the penny, because nothing says “we’re serious” like demanding interest and fees with the precision of a tax auditor.

But here’s where things get… interesting. Buried at the end of the filing like a legal Easter egg is a Status Report Pursuant to the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act—a federal law designed to protect active-duty military members from being sued while they’re defending the country. It’s the legal version of “Hey, maybe don’t evict someone while they’re in Afghanistan.” And so, before filing suit, Foundation Finance Co LLC had to check whether Mark was currently serving, had recently returned from service, or was about to be deployed. Why? Because if he was on active duty, the court might have to delay the case, cap the interest rate, or even appoint a lawyer to represent him—protections put in place so soldiers don’t come home to a stack of eviction notices and default judgments.

So what did they find? According to the Department of Defense’s database—checked on October 24, 2025—Mark Settle was not on active duty. He hadn’t left active duty in the past year. His unit hadn’t been notified of a future call-up. In short: no military protections apply. The report is thorough, complete with disclaimers that this data isn’t foolproof and that lenders should double-check if they have any doubts. There’s even a warning that if you ignore possible military status and go after a service member anyway, the court might come after you with penalties. But Foundation Finance Co LLC ran the check, got the all-clear, and hit the file button.

Now, why are they in court? Simple: they want their money. The legal claim—“Petition on an Account and Money Lent”—is the civil court’s version of “he borrowed, he didn’t pay.” It’s not about a car accident, a broken contract, or stolen heirlooms. It’s about debt. Plain and simple. And in Oklahoma, if you loan money and someone doesn’t repay, you can sue to get it back—plus interest, court costs, and attorney’s fees. That last bit is key: Foundation Finance isn’t just asking for the $38,341.98. They’re also asking the court to make Mark pay for the lawyer who filed this very lawsuit. Which means, if they win, Mark could end up owing even more.

And how much is $38,341.98 in the grand scheme of things? Well, in Minco, Oklahoma, it’s a lot. It’s a down payment on a house. It’s two brand-new Ford F-150s. It’s enough to cover four years of community college tuition with cash left over for a spring break trip to Destin. For a lot of people, that’s life-altering money. And while we don’t know Mark’s financial situation—whether he lost a job, faced medical bills, or just got crushed by high-interest lending—we do know this: someone thinks he owes it, and they’re willing to hire a Texas law firm (Jenkins & Young, P.C.) to chase it down.

As for what they want—beyond the obvious—there’s no request for a jury trial, no demand for punitive damages, no wild accusations of fraud or identity theft. Just cold, hard cash. Judgment. Enforcement. The legal system doing what it does best: making people pay what they owe. Or at least what someone says they owe.

Now, here’s our take: the most absurd part of this case isn’t the amount, the lack of detail, or even the fact that a Wisconsin-based finance company is suing an Oklahoma man through a Texas law firm. No, the real absurdity is how normal this all is. This is how debt collection works in America: a sparse petition, a robotic status check, a demand for tens of thousands of dollars, and zero context. We don’t know how Mark got into this hole. We don’t know if he disputes the debt. We don’t know if he even knows about the lawsuit yet. All we have is a number, a name, and a court clerk’s stamp.

And yet, we find ourselves weirdly rooting for transparency. For answers. For someone—anyone—to say, “Wait, let’s actually talk about this.” Was this loan predatory? Was it a payday loan in disguise? Did Mark serve his country and come home to a debt spiral? The SCRA check suggests someone was at least thinking about fairness. But the rest of the filing? It’s like watching a movie where the plot is just the credits rolling.

Look, debt is real. People borrow money. Sometimes they can’t pay. And sometimes, companies have to sue. But when a case hinges on $38,341.98 and offers less backstory than a Craigslist ad, it’s hard not to wonder: who is Mark Settle? And more importantly—can he catch a break?

We’re entertainers, not lawyers. But if this were a TV drama, we’d already be renewing it for Season 2.

Case Overview

$38,342 Demand Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Jody D. Jenkins

JENKINS & YOUNG, P.C.

Relief Sought

$38,342 Monetary

Plaintiffs

Foundation Finance Co LLC business
Rep: JENKINS & YOUNG, P.C.

Defendants

Mark Settle individual

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Petition on an Account and Money Lent	Defendant owes Plaintiff $38,341.98

Petition Text

1,208 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF GRADY COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA FOUNDATION FINANCE CO LLC, Plaintiff, V. MARK SETTLE, Defendant. PETITION ON AN ACCOUNT AND MONEY LENT TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: Plaintiff, Foundation Finance Co LLC files this Petition on an Account and Money Lent, and in support thereof will show the Court as follows: I. Plaintiff is Foundation Finance Co LLC, whose business address is 7802 Meadow Rock Drive, Weston WI 54476. Defendant is Mark Settle, who may be served with process at 166 State Hwy 152, Minco OK 73059. II. Defendant owes Plaintiff $38,341.98 according to a credit agreement entered into with Plaintiff, Foundation Finance Co LLC. Defendant promised to pay Plaintiff but failed to do so. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant for the sum of $38,341.98, plus interest and costs including reasonable attorney's fees. FILED IN DISTRICT COURT Grady County, Oklahoma NOV - 7 2025 MICA HACKNEY, Court Clerk By: Deputy Respectfully submitted, JENKINS & YOUNG, P.C. P.O. Box 420 Lubbock, Texas 79408-0420 Telephone: (806) 687-9172 Facsimile: (806) 771-8755 Email: [email protected] By: /s/ Jody D. Jenkins Oklahoma State Bar No. 34460 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF Status Report Pursuant to Servicemembers Civil Relief Act SSN: XXX-XX-9782 Birth Date: Last Name: SETTLE First Name: MARK Middle Name: Status As Of: Oct-24-2025 Certificate ID: 0TY2CZSLSNWY4SV <table> <tr> <th colspan="5">On Active Duty On Active Duty Status Date</th> </tr> <tr> <th>Active Duty Start Date</th> <th>Active Duty End Date</th> <th>Status</th> <th>Service Component</th> </tr> <tr> <td>NA</td> <td>NA</td> <td>No</td> <td>NA</td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="4">This response reflects the individuals' active duty status based on the Active Duty Status Date</td> </tr> </table> <table> <tr> <th colspan="5">Left Active Duty Within 367 Days of Active Duty Status Date</th> </tr> <tr> <th>Active Duty Start Date</th> <th>Active Duty End Date</th> <th>Status</th> <th>Service Component</th> </tr> <tr> <td>NA</td> <td>NA</td> <td>No</td> <td>NA</td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="4">This response reflects whether the individual left active duty status within 367 days preceding the Active Duty Status Date</td> </tr> </table> <table> <tr> <th colspan="5">The Member or His/Her Unit Was Notified of a Future Call-Up to Active Duty on Active Duty Status Date</th> </tr> <tr> <th>Order Notification Start Date</th> <th>Order Notification End Date</th> <th>Status</th> <th>Service Component</th> </tr> <tr> <td>NA</td> <td>NA</td> <td>No</td> <td>NA</td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="4">This response reflects whether the individual or his/her unit has received early notification to report for active duty</td> </tr> </table> Upon searching the data banks of the Department of Defense Manpower Data Center, based on the information that you provided, the above is the status of the individual on the active duty status date as to all branches of the Uniformed Services (Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, Space Force, NOAA, Public Health, and Coast Guard). This status includes information on a Servicemember or his/her unit receiving notification of future orders to report for Active Duty. The Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) is an organization of the Department of Defense (DoD) that maintains the Defense Enrollment and Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) database which is the official source of data on eligibility for military medical care and other eligibility systems. The DoD strongly supports the enforcement of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (50 USC App. § 3901 et seq., as amended) (SCRA) (formerly known as the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act of 1940). DMDC has issued hundreds of thousands of “does not possess any information indicating that the individual is currently on active duty” responses, and has experienced only a small error rate. In the event the individual referenced above, or any family member, friend, or representative asserts in any manner that the individual was on active duty for the active duty status date, or is otherwise entitled to the protections of the SCRA, you are strongly encouraged to obtain further verification of the person’s status by contacting that person’s Service. Service contact information can be found on the SCRA website’s FAQ page (Q35) via this URL: https://scra.dmdc.osd.mil/scra/#/faqs. If you have evidence the person was on active duty for the active duty status date and you fail to obtain this additional Service verification, punitive provisions of the SCRA may be invoked against you. See 50 USC App. § 3921(c). This response reflects the following information: (1) The individual’s Active Duty status on the Active Duty Status Date (2) Whether the individual left Active Duty status within 367 days preceding the Active Duty Status Date (3) Whether the individual or his/her unit received early notification to report for active duty on the Active Duty Status Date. More information on "Active Duty Status" Active duty status as reported in this certificate is defined in accordance with 10 USC § 101(d)(1). Prior to 2010 only some of the active duty periods less than 30 consecutive days in length were available. In the case of a member of the National Guard, this includes service under a call to active service authorized by the President or the Secretary of Defense under 32 USC § 502(f) for purposes of responding to a national emergency declared by the President and supported by Federal funds. All Active Guard Reserve (AGR) members must be assigned against an authorized mobilization position in the unit they support. This includes Navy Training and Administration of the Reserves (TARs), Marine Corps Active Reserve (ARs) and Coast Guard Reserve Program Administrator (RPAs). Active Duty status also applies to a Uniformed Service member who is an active duty commissioned officer of the U.S. Public Health Service or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Commissioned Corps). Coverage Under the SCRA is Broader in Some Cases Coverage under the SCRA is broader in some cases and includes some categories of persons on active duty for purposes of the SCRA who would not be reported as on Active Duty under this certificate. SCRA protections are for Title 10 and Title 14 active duty records for all the Uniformed Services periods. Title 32 periods of Active Duty are not covered by SCRA, as defined in accordance with 10 USC § 101(d)(1). Many times orders are amended to extend the period of active duty, which would extend SCRA protections. Persons seeking to rely on this website certification should check to make sure the orders on which SCRA protections are based have not been amended to extend the inclusive dates of service. Furthermore, some protections of the SCRA may extend to persons who have received orders to report for active duty or to be inducted, but who have not actually begun active duty or actually reported for induction. The Last Date on Active Duty entry is important because a number of protections of the SCRA extend beyond the last dates of active duty. Those who could rely on this certificate are urged to seek qualified legal counsel to ensure that all rights guaranteed to Service members under the SCRA are protected WARNING: This certificate was provided based on a last name, SSN/date of birth, and active duty status date provided by the requester. Providing erroneous information will cause an erroneous certificate to be provided.