CRAZY CIVIL COURT ← Back
TULSA COUNTY • CJ-2025-5160

U.S. Bank National Association v. PHILLIP W CRUMBLISS AKA PHILLIP CRUMBLISS

Filed: Nov 7, 2025
Type: CJ

What's This Case About?

Let’s cut straight to the drama: a bank is suing a married couple in Tulsa for $18,899.74—yes, down to the penny—because they stopped paying their credit card bill. Not because they fled the country, not because they declared bankruptcy, not because they’re hiding out in a bunker in Idaho. No, this is far more American than that: they just… stopped paying. And now, in the grand tradition of late-stage capitalism, we’re all invited to bear witness to the legal aftermath, because someone in a suit at U.S. Bank decided it was worth dragging Phillip and Brandy Crumbliss through the civil court system. The irony? The account was allegedly opened on May 1, 2017—May Day, the international workers’ holiday. If only they’d unionized.

So who are these people? Phillip W. Crumbliss, sometimes just called Phillip Crumbliss (we assume the “W” stands for “Why Did We Open This Card?”), and Brandy J. Crumbliss, occasionally referred to as Brandy Crumbliss (the “J” remains a mystery, though we’re guessing “Just Trying to Survive”), are a married couple living in Tulsa County, Oklahoma. They are not celebrities. They are not politicians. They are not known to have committed any crimes more serious than possibly forgetting to return a library book in 2003. They are, in every sense, ordinary Americans—exactly the kind of people who get hit with debt collection lawsuits when life, credit scores, and interest rates collide in a perfect storm of financial mediocrity. They don’t appear to have lawyers. They haven’t filed any responses—at least not yet. They are, for now, silent figures in a legal document, their entire financial downfall summarized in four short paragraphs and a demand for money that’s just shy of the price of a used Toyota Corolla.

Here’s what allegedly went down: On May 1, 2017—again, a date that feels almost too on-the-nose—Phillip and Brandy opened a credit account with U.S. Bank National Association. The filing doesn’t say what they bought. Was it a couch? A honeymoon? A year’s supply of beef jerky and protein powder? We’ll never know. But what we do know is that they used the card. They racked up charges. They made payments—sometimes. The last recorded payment, according to the bank’s records, was on December 23, 2024. That’s right: they made one final payment just eight days before Christmas. Was it a desperate attempt to stay in the black during the holidays? A last-ditch effort to keep the account in good standing before giving up entirely? Or maybe they just needed one final splurge on gifts before throwing in the towel? We can’t say for sure, but the timing is poetic. Then, silence. No more payments. The account went dark. And on July 31, 2025—just over seven months later—the bank officially closed the account, “charged it off,” and decided to sue. The balance? $18,899.74. And no, they did not include a gift receipt.

Now, why are we in court? Because U.S. Bank wants its money. That’s it. That’s the whole reason. This is a debt collection case—specifically, a “collection of debt” lawsuit, which is legalese for “you owe us, and we’re not going to let it go.” The bank claims the Crumblisses entered into a contract when they opened the credit card, agreed to pay what they spent, and then failed to do so. That’s the cause of action. It’s not fraud. It’s not theft. It’s not even a dispute over who ate the last slice of pizza. It’s simply: you borrowed, you didn’t repay, we want our cash. The bank is asking for a judgment—which means the court officially says, “Yes, you owe this money”—plus court costs, and oh, by the way, they also want the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission to hand over the Crumblisses’ employment history. Why? Probably to see if they have a job and can be garnished. It’s not just about the money anymore—it’s about financial reconnaissance.

And what do they want? $18,899.74. Let’s put that in perspective. That’s not a million dollars. It’s not even fifty grand. But it’s also not chicken scratch. It’s enough to buy a modest used car, pay off a year of rent in Tulsa, or cover a major medical bill. For a middle-class couple, that’s a real sum—especially if they’re already struggling. Is it a lot for a credit card debt? Well, it depends. If you maxed out a card and stopped paying, sure, it adds up. Interest, late fees, compounding charges—credit card debt is like a snowball rolling down a hill made of bad decisions. But here’s the kicker: the bank didn’t try to negotiate. Didn’t offer a payment plan. Didn’t send a polite letter saying, “Hey, we noticed you’re behind—can we work something out?” Nope. They went straight to court. And they brought their lawyers—specifically, RAUSCH STURM LLP, a firm that, according to their own letterhead, specializes in “debt collection.” They’re not personal injury lawyers. They’re not divorce attorneys. They’re the people who show up when the bank says, “Time to get serious.”

Now, let’s talk about our take—because if we’re going to cover petty civil disputes like true crime, we’re allowed to have opinions. The most absurd part of this case isn’t the amount. It’s not even the fact that they’re suing over a credit card. It’s the sheer ordinariness of it all. This isn’t a scandal. It’s not a betrayal. It’s not even particularly dramatic. It’s just… life. Two people, a credit card, a few years of spending, and then—poof—financial collapse. And instead of a conversation, we get a lawsuit. Instead of compassion, we get a demand for employment records. Instead of a system that helps people dig out, we have one that sues them into deeper holes. We’re rooting for… well, honestly, we’re not rooting for the bank. They’re a multi-billion-dollar institution. We’re not rooting for a total wipe of the debt—because, let’s be real, someone should pay for what they spend. But we are rooting for a little humanity. A payment plan. A mediation. A “hey, what’s going on in your life?” before the lawyers get involved. Because at the end of the day, Phillip and Brandy Crumbliss aren’t villains. They’re just two people who probably thought, “We’ll figure it out later,” and now later has arrived—with interest. And a court date.

So here we are. Another day, another debt collection case in Tulsa County. The Crumblisses may show up. They may not. They might settle. They might lose by default. The bank might get its judgment. Or maybe, just maybe, someone will pick up the phone and say, “Let’s talk.” But don’t hold your breath. Because in the world of civil court, the bill always comes due—eventually. And sometimes, it comes with a subpoena for your work history and a lawyer named Nicholas Tait. We’re entertainers, not lawyers. But even we know that’s not justice. That’s just business.

Case Overview

$18,900 Demand Petition
Jurisdiction
District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma
Relief Sought
$18,900 Monetary
Claims
# Cause of Action Description
1 collection of debt Defendant defaulted on credit account, plaintiff seeks judgment for balance due

Petition Text

332 words
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA U.S. Bank National Association PLAINTIFF, vs. PHILLIP W CRUMBLISS AKA PHILLIP CRUMBLISS BRANDY J CRUMBLISS AKA BRANDY CRUMBLISS DEFENDANT(S). PETITION COMES NOW the Plaintiff, by and through its attorneys, RAUSCH STURM LLP, and for cause of action against the Defendant alleges and states the following: 1. Plaintiff is duly and legally organized and is authorized to transact business in the State of Oklahoma. 2. On or about May 1, 2017, Defendant(s) opened a credit account with U.S. Bank National Association. 3. Defendant(s) used the account and thereby became obligated to pay the balance accrued. Plaintiff’s records indicate Defendant’s(s’) last payment occurred on or about December 23, 2024. Defendants(s) thereafter defaulted on Defendant’s(s’) obligation. 4. On or about July 31, 2025, based on Defendant’s failure to pay, Plaintiff closed and/or charged off Defendant’s account, then numbered ************9058, with a balance due. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendant(s) in the sum of $18,899.74, plus costs, and for all subsequent costs; that the Court order the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission (OESC) to produce in writing the employment history for the Defendant for the period specified in Plaintiff’s request; and for such other and further relief as this Court may deem equitable, just, and proper. RAUSCH STURM LLP ATTORNEYS IN THE PRACTICE OF DEBT COLLECTION By: /s/ Nicholas Tait, OBA #22739 5200 South Yale Avenue, Suite 505 Tulsa, OK 74135 (877) 215-2552 TTY: 711 Fax: (855) 272-3575 [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF VERIFIED STATEMENT OF COUNSEL I, the undersigned counsel for Plaintiff, pursuant to Oklahoma Statutes Title 12, section 426, state under penalty of perjury under the laws of Oklahoma that the statements made in the foregoing Petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Signed 10/13/2025 , in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Nicholas Tait, OBA #22739 This is a communication from a debt collector. This communication is an attempt to collect a debt and any information obtained from this communication will be used for that purpose. Our File No. 5331126
Disclaimer: This content is sourced from publicly available court records. Crazy Civil Court is an entertainment platform and does not provide legal advice. We are not lawyers. All information is presented as-is from public filings.