CJ-2026-00048 - The Estate of Ruth Helen Steichen, Deceased v. Jack McClendon

What's This Case About?

Let’s be real: people flake on real estate deals all the time. But when you bid $124,800 at a live auction—$124,800!—in front of witnesses, sign a legally binding contract, and then just… ghost? That’s not just cold feet. That’s performance art in a polo shirt. And now, a deceased woman’s estate in rural Oklahoma is dragging a man from Colorado into court because he refused to close on a 3-acre plot he won fair and square. It’s like Antiques Roadshow meets Law & Order: Breach of Contract Unit.

Meet Ruth Helen Steichen—rest in peace, Queen of Kay County. She once owned a little slice of Oklahoma dirt in the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 15, Township 25 North, Range 1 East. (Yes, that’s how land is described here. No GPS, just geometry and grit.) Ruth passed away, and like all good estates, hers didn’t just vanish into the ether. Enter Kenneth W. Klingenberg, the court-appointed personal representative, whose job it is to settle Ruth’s affairs—sell the assets, pay the bills, and make sure her legacy doesn’t end with unpaid property taxes and a haunted chicken coop. So, in March 2025, Klingenberg hired Schrader Real Estate and Auction Company, Inc., because when you’ve got land to move, you don’t mess around—you bring in the auctioneers with the fast-talking cadence and the gavel of destiny.

On June 24, 2025, at the Carolyn Renfro Event Center in Ponca City (motto: “We Have an Event Center!”), the auction went down. Bidders gathered. Tension built. And then—enter Jack McClendon. Not from Ponca City. Not even from Oklahoma. Jack is a man of Denver, Colorado—land of mountains, microbrews, and presumably better real estate opportunities than a three-acre plot in rural Kay County. But for reasons known only to him and possibly a very persuasive auctioneer, Jack raised his paddle and dropped a cool $124,800 on Tract 25. That’s not chump change. That’s “I could buy a nice condo in Denver” money. That’s “I could start a small llama farm” money. And yes, that’s “I definitely meant to do that” money—because he signed an Agreement to Purchase. Not a handshake. Not a “Yeah, I’ll think about it.” A signed, sealed, legally enforceable contract.

Here’s how these auctions usually work: you bid, you win, you pay 10% down, and you close within 30 days. It’s real estate with the training wheels off. But Jack? Jack did not close. He didn’t pay. He didn’t call. He didn’t even send a “Hey, my dog ate the closing documents” email. According to the Estate, they scheduled a closing. They were ready. They had the deed. They had the paperwork. They had the enthusiasm. And then—crickets. So they canceled the closing. Then they asked Jack, nicely at first, “Hey, remember that $125K land purchase you committed to?” And Jack, allegedly, said nothing. Or worse—said no. So the Estate did what any self-respecting estate would do: they sued.

Now, let’s talk about what they’re actually suing for, because this isn’t just “give us the money.” The Estate isn’t asking for monetary damages—no “pay us $124,800 plus interest.” Nope. They’re going full specific performance. That’s a legal term that sounds like a TikTok trend but actually means: “We don’t want your money. We want you to do what you promised.” In other words: “Jack, you bid on this land. You signed the contract. You looked the auctioneer in the eye. Now you’re going to buy it, whether you like it or not.” It’s the legal equivalent of “You said yes, and we’re holding you to it.”

And because apparently the Estate’s legal team at DERRYBERRY & NAIFEH, LLP doesn’t work for exposure, they’re also asking for attorney fees and costs. Which makes sense—this isn’t a text message dispute. This is a formal petition filed in Kay County District Court, complete with exhibits, jurisdictional assertions, and a notarized verification. Someone’s billing hours, and the contract says the loser pays. So if Jack loses, he doesn’t just have to buy the land—he might have to pay for the lawyer who made him buy the land. That’s poetic justice with a retainer.

Now, you might be wondering: “Why is this such a big deal? It’s just 3 acres.” Well, let’s put $124,800 in perspective. That’s not a “I’ll just write a check” amount for most people. It’s not a down payment on a house in L.A., but in Kay County? That’s serious money. And for Jack, who lives in Denver, where the median home price is north of $600K, this wasn’t even a rounding error on his mortgage. So why bid? Why sign? Why commit?

Was it a moment of weakness? Did he get caught up in the auction fever—the lights, the crowd, the intoxicating smell of other people’s money? Did he think, “Hey, I’ll just flip this to a wind farm or a tiny home commune”? Or did he have second thoughts when he realized that “3 acres in Kay County” might mean “3 acres of scrub, snakes, and one sad fence post”? We don’t know. The filing doesn’t say. But we do know this: Jack McClendon had every opportunity to back out before signing. Auctions usually have terms. You’re expected to do your due diligence. You’re supposed to know what you’re buying. And once you win? You’re on the hook.

The most absurd part of this whole saga? The sheer audacity of the non-closure. Imagine going to a car auction, winning a vintage Mustang, refusing to pick it up, and then acting surprised when the dealership sues you. That’s what this is. But with land. And a dead plaintiff. And a Colorado defendant who probably thought, “Eh, they’ll just resell it.” But the Estate isn’t having it. They want specific performance. They want Jack to comply. They want him to grow roots—literally.

And honestly? We’re rooting for the estate. Not because we love bureaucracy or enjoy watching people get legally strong-armed into buying land they don’t want. But because contracts matter. Because auctions only work if people honor their bids. Because if you can just walk away from a $125K commitment because you changed your mind, then what’s next? Can I bid on a Picasso at Sotheby’s and then ghost? Can I win a charity auction for a dinner with the mayor and then claim I was “intoxicated by the hors d'oeuvres”?

No. The system only works if we play by the rules. And Jack McClendon? He played. He won. And now, whether he likes it or not, he’s the proud future owner of three acres of Oklahoma soil—whether he ever sets foot on it or not. And if he thinks this is over, he hasn’t met Grady R. Conrad, attorney for the Estate, who’s ready to litigate this all the way to the county recorder’s office.

So pack your bags, Jack. Bring boots. Bring a shovel. Bring a sense of irony. Because Kay County is waiting. And it’s got your name on a deed.

Case Overview

Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court of Kay County, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Grady R. Conrad

DERRYBERRY & NAIFEH, LLP

Relief Sought

Plaintiffs

The Estate of Ruth Helen Steichen, Deceased government
Rep: Grady R. Conrad of DERRYBERRY & NAIFEH, LLP

Defendants

Jack McClendon individual

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Breach of Contract/Specific Performance	Plaintiff seeks specific performance compelling Defendant to complete the purchase of real property
2	Attorney Fees and Costs	Plaintiff seeks recovery of attorney fees and costs incurred in enforcing the terms of the Agreement

Petition Text

883 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF KAY COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA THE ESTATE OF RUTH HELEN STEICHEN, ) Deceased, ) Plaintiff, v. ) JACK MCCLENDON, an individual, Defendant. PETITION COMES NOW the Plaintiff, The Estate of Ruth Helen Steichen, Deceased, by and through Kenneth W. Klingenberg, Personal Representative of the Estate of Ruth Helen Steichen, through his attorney of record, Grady R. Conrad of the firm DERRYBERRY & NAI FEH, LLP, and for his cause of action against, Defendant, Jack McClendon alleges and states as follows: PARTIES 1. That Plaintiff is the Estate of Ruth Helen Steichen, deceased (hereinafter the “Estate”), acting by and through its duly appointed Personal Representative, Kenneth W. Klingenberg, who was appointed by the District Court of Kay County, State of Oklahoma on the 28th day of April, 2023. 2. That Defendant Jack McClendon is resident of Denver, Colorado. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. That the principal subject of the present action concerns real property of the Estate located in Kay County, State of Oklahoma. 4. The parties entered into a contract in Kay County, State of Oklahoma that states the terms contract shall be governed by and interpreted by the laws of the State of Oklahoma. 5. That Defendant’s contacts with the state of Oklahoma give rise to the claims asserted herein. 6. That this Court has personal jurisdiction over the parties. 7. That this Court has subject matter jurisdiction of the present action due to Defendant’s minimum contact with the State of Oklahoma. 8. That venue is proper in Kay County, State of Oklahoma. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 9. That on or about the 26th day of March, 2025, the Estate engaged the professional real estate auction services of Schrader Real Estate and Auction Company, Inc. (hereinafter, “Auctioneer”). 10. That Auctioneer held a Public Auction (hereinafter, the “Auction”) on the 24th day of June, 2025, at 6:00 p.m., at the Carolyn Renfro Event Center, 445 Fairview Avenue, Ponca City, Oklahoma 74601, in which the following real property (hereinafter “Subject Property”) located in Kay County, State of Oklahoma, was offered for sale: TRACT 25: A PART OF THE NW/4 NE/4 OF SECTION FIFTEEN (15), TOWNSHIP TWENTY-FIVE (25) NORTH, RANGE ONE (1) EAST, KAY COUNTY, STATE OF OKLAHOMA (CONTAINING 3 ACRES MOL) 11. That Defendant provided the highest and best bid for the Subject Property, with a winning bid amount of ONE HUNDRED TWENTY-FOUR THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED DOLLARS AND NO CENTS ($124,800.00). 12. That Plaintiff and Defendant entered into an Agreement to Purchase (hereinafter “Agreement”) for the Subject Property, attached herein at Exhibit ‘1.’ 13. That the Agreement is valid, enforceable, and supported by adequate consideration. 14. That Plaintiff has remained ready, willing, and able to perform under the Agreement and able to make good title upon conveyance of the Subject Property. 15. That Defendant has failed and refused to complete the purchase of the Subject Property, including refusing to tender purchase price and/or specifically performing under the Agreement. 16. That the parties set a closing date for the Subject Property but Plaintiff had to cancel the closing due to Defendant’s non-performance. 17. That Plaintiff has demanded that Defendant perform under the Agreement, but Defendant has failed or refused to do so. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF CONTRACT/SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE 18. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-17 herein. 19. That the parties entered into a valid enforceable contract for the sale of the Subject Property. 20. That Plaintiff has performed and complied with all of the terms and provisions of the Agreement. 21. That Defendant has breached the Agreement in that he has not paid the amount owed to Plaintiff pursuant to the Agreement. 22. That Defendant has breached the Agreement in that he has failed to close on the Subject Property. 23. That demand has been made upon Defendant to perform pursuant to the terms of the Agreement. 24. That Plaintiff is entitled to specific performance compelling Defendant to perform all obligations pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, including completing the agreed upon purchase price of the Subject Property. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS 25. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-24 herein. 26. Defendant’s breach of the Agreement necessitated this cause of action and forced Plaintiff to incur legal expenses. 27. The Agreement specifically states that should any party bring an enforcement action pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, that the prevailing party shall be entitled to its attorney fees and costs. 28. Plaintiff seeks the recovery of its attorney fees and costs incurred in enforcing the terms of the Agreement. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Plaintiffs pray for entry of orders against Defendant, consistent with the requests hereinabove, and for such other and further orders as to which Plaintiffs are entitled by law WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiffs submits their Petition, as set forth herein, prays for its attorney’s fees and costs, and for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper Respectfully submitted, Grady R. Conrad, OBA No. 32164 DERRYBERRY & NAIFEH, LLP 4800 North Lincoln Blvd. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105 Telephone: 405-528-6569 Facsimile: 405-528-6462 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS VERIFICATION STATE OF OKLAHOMA ) COUNTY OF OKLAHOMA ) I, Kenneth W. Klingenberg, of lawful age, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and states I am an individual and have read the within and foregoing Petition and the statements therein contained are true and correct as I verily believe under penalty of perjury. Kenneth W. Klingenberg SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before this 6 day of March, 2026. Patricia Berenhardt NOTARY PUBLIC My Commission No. 19001141