CJ-2026-00066 - Stacy L. Van Horn, DVM v. McClain Bank

What's This Case About?

Let’s get one thing straight: a doctor in Oklahoma is suing his bank for $5,043 — not because he forgot to log a transfer or overdrew his account, but because the bank allegedly paid out five checks he didn’t write, didn’t sign, didn’t authorize, and probably didn’t even know existed — and then had the audacity to keep the money. That’s right. Dr. Stacy L. Van Horn, a veterinarian who clearly has better things to do than play detective with check fraud, is now in court not just to get his cash back, but to drag McClain Bank into the judicial spotlight for what he claims was a total failure of basic banking 101.

Dr. Van Horn isn’t some amateur with a shoebox full of loose receipts. He ran a legitimate business — “Van Horn Enterprises, Stacy L. Van Horn, DVM” — and kept a checking account at McClain Bank in Purcell, Oklahoma, like a responsible adult. He wrote checks in order, kept track of his numbers, and generally played by the rules. His relationship with the bank was supposed to be simple: he deposits money, the bank protects it, and only he gets to say when it leaves the account. That trust, according to the petition, was shattered between March and May of 2022, when five checks totaling $5,043 magically appeared in the system — all drawn on his account, all signed (supposedly) by him, and all completely fake. The recipients? Jason Lehman for $499. Deborah Britt for $1,498. Justin Warren for $749. Robert Walker for $998. Mary Bandy for $1,299. None of these people are accused of wrongdoing — they just cashed checks that, on paper, came from Dr. Van Horn. But here’s the kicker: he didn’t write them. The signatures? Forgeries. The check numbers? Wildly out of sequence — like someone skipped from page 10 to page 60 in a notebook. The design? Totally different from his actual checks. And yet — the bank paid them. All five. No questions asked.

So how did this happen? Van Horn’s theory, laid out in the petition, sounds like something out of a low-budget crime thriller: a legitimate $300 check he wrote to a woman named Carrie White got deposited via mobile app, then thrown in the trash. White herself admitted she trashed the physical check after depositing it. And somewhere between that trash can and the bank’s fraud detection system (which, in this case, may as well have been on vacation), someone — we don’t know who — lifted that discarded check, used it as a template, and printed up a series of knockoffs with higher amounts, different payees, and a signature that sort of looks like Van Horn’s if you squint and tilt your head. It’s not exactly Ocean’s Eleven, but it’s enough to fool a sleepy teller or an overworked back-office processor — unless, of course, the bank actually checks things like signature authenticity, check numbering, and formatting. Which, spoiler alert: they allegedly didn’t.

As soon as Van Horn noticed the unauthorized withdrawals, he did everything right. He called the bank. He flagged the checks. He reported the fraud to the Cleveland County Sheriff’s Office, kicking off a formal investigation (Case No. 2022-25052, for true crime enthusiasts keeping score). He pointed out the glaring red flags: the out-of-order check numbers, the weird formatting, the signature that wouldn’t pass a middle school art class forgery test. He even had his lawyer send a formal demand letter in October 2022 — over three years ago — asking the bank to reverse the charges and give his $5,043 back. And what did McClain Bank do? According to the filing: nothing. They didn’t re-credit the account. They didn’t launch a serious investigation. They didn’t say “oops” and fix it. They just… kept the money. Like it was theirs.

Now, you might think, “Wait, isn’t this just how banks work? You get scammed, it’s on you?” Nope. Not under the law. Van Horn isn’t just mad — he’s armed with the Uniform Commercial Code, Oklahoma’s legal rulebook for financial transactions. His lawsuit claims the bank violated multiple legal duties: first, by paying checks that weren’t “properly payable” (fancy legal speak for “not authorized by the customer”). Second, by breaching their contract — because, surprise, banks are supposed to follow your instructions. Third, by being flat-out negligent — failing to spot obvious signs of fraud that even a moderately alert human should’ve caught. Then, in case the judge isn’t sufficiently outraged, he throws in two nuclear options: breach of fiduciary duty (arguing the bank had a special duty of trust) and fraud (or “constructive fraud,” which is basically “you acted so recklessly it’s like you lied”). These are backup claims — legal Hail Marys — but they show Van Horn isn’t messing around.

And what does he want? Officially, he’s asking for over $10,000 — which includes the $5,043 principal, plus interest, fees, legal costs, and potentially punitive damages if the jury thinks the bank was especially shady. Is $10,000 a lot? For a bank, it’s pocket change. For a small business owner — especially one running a veterinary practice, where cash flow matters — losing five grand to fraud can mean delayed payroll, missed equipment upgrades, or personal financial strain. But the real value here isn’t just the money. It’s accountability. Van Horn wants the court to say: You had a job. You failed. You need to fix it. He also demanded a jury trial — which means he doesn’t want a quiet settlement or a rubber-stamp judge. He wants twelve of his peers to look at this mess and say, “Yeah, the bank messed up.”

Our take? The most absurd part isn’t that someone forged checks. Criminals gonna criminal. The absurd part is that McClain Bank — a bank, an institution built on trust, verification, and fraud prevention — allegedly didn’t blink when five checks rolled through with mismatched numbers, weird formatting, and fake signatures. This isn’t a high-speed cyber heist. This is Check Fraud 101, and the bank failed the pop quiz. If your local diner’s cashier spotted these fakes before they hit the register, why didn’t the bank’s systems? Why no flags? No holds? No “Hey, Dr. Van Horn, did you really just write a $1,500 check to Deborah Britt?” call? And then to refuse to fix it after being shown the evidence? That’s not just negligence — it’s customer service malpractice.

We’re not rooting for Van Horn because he’s a doctor or because he has a fancy title after his name. We’re rooting for him because he followed the rules, reported the crime, and gave the bank every chance to do the right thing. And they didn’t. In a world where banks auto-flag a $200 Amazon purchase as “suspicious,” it’s laughable — no, infuriating — that five clearly fake checks totaling over five grand slipped through without a single alert. This isn’t just about $5,043. It’s about whether banks can treat customer accounts like a game of “finders keepers” when fraud hits. Spoiler: they can’t. And if Dr. Van Horn wins? It won’t just be justice for one vet. It’ll be a reminder to every bank in Oklahoma — and beyond — that when you ignore the red flags, the courthouse doors swing wide open.

Case Overview

$10,043 Demand Jury Trial Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court of McClain County, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

James J. Pasquali

James J. Pasquali & Associates

Relief Sought

$10,043 Monetary

$0 Punitive

Plaintiffs

Stacy L. Van Horn, DVM individual
Rep: James J. Pasquali

Defendants

McClain Bank business

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Improper Payment / Violation of Oklahoma UCC	Plaintiff alleges bank paid unauthorized checks
2	Breach of Contract	Plaintiff alleges bank breached contract by paying unauthorized checks
3	Negligence	Plaintiff alleges bank was negligent in processing checks
4	Breach of Fiduciary Duty (pled in the alternative)	Plaintiff alleges bank breached fiduciary duties
5	Fraud / Constructive Fraud (alternative)	Plaintiff alleges bank engaged in fraud or constructive fraud

Petition Text

1,747 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MCCLAIN COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA STACY L. VAN HORN, DVM, An individual, Plaintiff, v. MCCLAIN BANK, An Oklahoma banking corporation, Defendant. PETITION COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, Stacy Van Horn, by & through his attorney of record, James Pasquali of James J. Pasquali & Associates, Attorneys at Law & for his causes of action against Defendant, McClain Bank, hereby states & avers as follows: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff, Stacy L. Van Horn, DVM ("Plaintiff" or "Dr. Van Horn"), is an individual residing in the State of Oklahoma who, at all times relevant hereto, maintained a checking account with McClain Bank under the name "Van Horn Enterprises, Stacy L. Van Horn, DVM." 2. Defendant McClain Bank ("Defendant" or "Bank") is an Oklahoma banking corporation doing business in McClain County, Oklahoma, including operating a branch in Purcell, Oklahoma, where Plaintiff maintained his account. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Oklahoma Constitution and Oklahoma statutes because the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and the claims arise under Oklahoma’s enactment of the Uniform Commercial Code, Title 12A, and Oklahoma common law. 4. Venue is proper in McClain County because Defendant conducts business in McClain County and the relevant banking transactions occurred in McClain County. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 5. Plaintiff maintained a checking account at McClain Bank (the "Account") under the style "Van Horn Enterprises, Stacy L. Van Horn, DVM." 6. Between approximately March 27, 2022 and May 17, 2022, five checks, totaling $5,043.00, were presented to and paid by McClain Bank and charged against Plaintiff’s Account, as follows: a. Check No. 4461 dated March 27, 2022 to Jason Lehman for $499.00; b. Check No. 4513 dated April 5, 2022 to Deborah Britt for $1,498.00; c. Check No. 4534 dated April 19, 2022 to Justin Warren for $749.00; d. Check No. 4585 dated May 4, 2022 to Robert Walker for $998.00; e. Check No. 4612 dated May 17, 2022 to Mary Bandy for $1,299.00. 7. Plaintiff did not write, sign, authorize, or approve any of the five (5) checks identified in paragraph 6, and any purported signatures purporting to be his on those checks are forgeries and/or the items are counterfeit instruments. Under Oklahoma’s UCC, such items are not “properly payable.” 8. Before discovering the fraudulent items, Plaintiff wrote and delivered a legitimate check in the amount of $300.00 to an individual named Carrie White. 9. After unauthorized debits began appearing, Plaintiff spoke with Carrie White at Remington Park & White stated he had endorsed and deposited the legitimate $300.00 check via mobile deposit and then discarded the paper check in the trash, and speculated that someone may have retrieved the discarded check and used it to copy or create fraudulent checks. 10. Upon noticing the unauthorized debits, Plaintiff promptly notified McClain Bank that he had not written the five (5) checks and disputed the charges. 11. Plaintiff also promptly reported the matter to the Cleveland County Sheriff’s Office (“CCSO”) on November 1, 2022, initiating CCSO Case No. 2022-25052, categorized as embezzlement/fraud. 12. Plaintiff informed McClain Bank that: a. The check numbers on the fraudulent checks were significantly higher and out of sequence compared to the check numbers on his legitimate checks then in use; b. The fraudulent checks had a different style, format, and design from Plaintiff’s legitimate checks historically and contemporaneously used on the Account; and c. The signatures on the fraudulent checks did not resemble Plaintiff’s genuine signature, which the Bank had on file and routinely relied upon. 13. The discrepancies of: A) Check-number sequence; B) Check design; & C) signature appearance; were ALL obvious red flags that a reasonably careful bank using ordinary care and reasonable commercial standards would have recognized as indicia of forgery or counterfeit items. 14. On or about October 24, 2022, Plaintiff’s Counsel, James J. Pasquali, sent a written demand letter to counsel for McClain Bank, offering full cooperation in any investigation, detailing the five (5) fraudulent checks totaling $5,043.00, & demanding that McClain Bank re-credit Plaintiff’s Account for the unauthorized debits. 15. Despite timely notice, documentation, & demand, McClain Bank failed & has refused to re-credit Plaintiff’s Account & continues to retain the benefit of funds wrongfully paid out on unauthorized items. 16. Plaintiff reviewed his account statements with reasonable promptness and notified McClain Bank of the unauthorized items within the time required by Oklahoma’s UCC, thereby satisfying his duties under 12A O.S. § 4-406 & preserving his right to recover. COUNT I – IMPROPER PAYMENT / VIOLATION OF OKLAHOMA UCC (12A O.S. ART. 3 & 4) 17. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1–16 as if fully set forth herein. 18. Under 12A O.S. § 4-401 and related provisions, a bank may charge against a customer’s account only those items that are “properly payable,” meaning they are authorized by the customer & in accordance with any agreement between the customer & the bank. 19. The five checks identified in paragraph 6 were not properly payable because Plaintiff did not sign or authorize them; the instruments bore forged signatures &/or were counterfeit, & thus were not valid orders of payment by Plaintiff. 20. By paying & charging the unauthorized items to Plaintiff’s Account, McClain Bank violated its statutory duties under Oklahoma’s UCC & is obligated to re-credit Plaintiff’s Account for the amount of the unauthorized payments, together with interest. 21. Plaintiff timely discovered and reported the unauthorized items & is not barred by any contractual or statutory preclusion provisions, including 12A O.S. § 4-406. 22. As a direct and proximate result of McClain Bank’s improper payment of unauthorized items, Plaintiff has suffered damages in at least the amount of $5,043.00, plus interest and related losses. COUNT II – BREACH OF CONTRACT 23. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1–22 as if fully set forth herein. 24. Plaintiff & McClain Bank entered into a contract governing the Account, including terms requiring McClain Bank to honor only properly payable items & to handle Plaintiff’s funds in accordance with applicable law & reasonable banking standards. 25. McClain Bank breached the contract by: a. Paying & charging forged &/or counterfeit checks that were not authorized by Plaintiff; & b. Refusing to correct the unauthorized debits and re-credit Plaintiff’s Account upon timely notice & demand; 26. As a result of Defendant’s breach of contract, Plaintiff has sustained damages in at least the amount of $5,043.00, plus interest, fees, and consequential damages allowed by law. COUNT III – NEGLIGENCE 27. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1–26 as if fully set forth herein. 28. McClain Bank owed Plaintiff a duty to exercise ordinary care, consistent with reasonable commercial banking standards and Oklahoma’s UCC, in processing checks, comparing signatures, & monitoring Plaintiff’s Account for irregularities. 29. McClain Bank breached its duty of ordinary care by, among other things: a. Failing to compare the signatures on the five checks with Plaintiff’s genuine signature on file, which would have revealed obvious discrepancies; b. Failing to detect that the check numbers on the fraudulent checks were out of sequence and significantly higher than Plaintiff’s then-current check numbers; c. Failing to detect that the fraudulent checks had a different style and design than Plaintiff’s legitimate checks; and d. Failing to implement and/or follow reasonable procedures to identify and stop payment on obviously suspicious items before debiting Plaintiff’s Account. 30. McClain Bank’s negligence was a direct & proximate cause of the loss of $5,043.00 & related damages. 31. Plaintiff has suffered actual damages, including loss of funds, loss of use of money, time and expense dealing with the fraud, & other consequential damages in an amount to be proven at trial. COUNT IV – BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY (PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE) 32. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1–31 as if fully set forth herein. 33. To the extent the relationship between Plaintiff and McClain Bank, including the Bank’s control over Plaintiff’s funds and its superior knowledge of banking practices, created a special relationship of trust and confidence beyond a typical debtor-creditor relationship, McClain Bank owed fiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith, and disclosure to Plaintiff. 34. McClain Bank breached any such fiduciary duties by honoring unauthorized items, failing to disclose material facts concerning the handling of Plaintiff’s Account and the fraudulent checks, and refusing to re-credit Plaintiff’s Account after learning that the items were unauthorized. 35. As a result, Plaintiff has suffered the damages described above & seeks all relief available under Oklahoma law. COUNT V – FRAUD / CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD (ALTERNATIVE) 36. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1–35 as if fully set forth herein, to the extent not inconsistent with this Count. 37. After Plaintiff reported the unauthorized checks & demanded correction, McClain Bank, acting through its agents and employees, represented, expressly or by implication, that the charges were valid and that the Bank had no obligation to re-credit the Account, despite knowing, or being charged with knowledge, that the signatures were inconsistent with Plaintiff’s genuine signature and that the checks were out of sequence and differently styled. 38. To the extent McClain Bank knowingly or recklessly misrepresented material facts or concealed material information regarding its responsibilities and the status of the fraudulent items, such conduct constitutes fraud and/or constructive fraud under Oklahoma law. 39. Plaintiff reasonably relied on McClain Bank’s representations and omissions to his detriment. 40. As a result of the Bank’s fraudulent or constructively fraudulent conduct, Plaintiff has suffered damages and is entitled to recover actual damages &, where the evidence supports willful or reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights, punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the jury. DAMAGES AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF 41. Plaintiff incorporates the damages allegations above and contends that his actual damages are at least $5,043.00, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, incidental and consequential damages, and other relief permitted under Oklahoma law & the UCC. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Stacy L. Van Horn, DVM, prays for judgment against Defendant, McClain Bank, as follows: a. For actual damages in excess of $10,000.00, including at least $5,043.00 representing unauthorized debits, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; b. For all incidental, consequential, and special damages allowed by Oklahoma law and the UCC; c. For punitive damages on the fraud-based claims, in an amount to be determined by the jury where supported by the evidence; d. For Plaintiff’s costs of this action, and attorney’s fees to the extent provided by contract or statute; and e. For such other and further legal and equitable relief as the Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted, James J. Pasquali, OBA No. 18443 James J. Pasquali & Associates Attorneys at Law 510 East Memorial Road Suite C 4 Oklahoma City, OK 73114 405.605.8380 Telephone 405.605.8340 Facsimile Attorneys for Plaintiff VERIFICATION ATTACHED JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ATTORNEYS LIEN CLAIMED VERIFICATION STATE OF OKLAHOMA ) COUNTY OF OKLAHOMA ) ss. Stacy Van Horn, of lawful age, being first duly sworn upon oath deposes and states: That he is the above-named Plaintiff, that he has read the above PETITION and knows the contents thereof to be true and correct. Stacy Van Horn Subscribed and sworn to before me on this 2nd day of February 2026. My Commission Expires: April 21st, 2027