Date: 11-20-2013

Case Style: 5 J Aviation, LLC v. Bank of America

Case Number: CJ-2009-1480

Judge: Lisa T. Davis

Court: District Court, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Dennis Serge Boxeur, George S. Corbyn, Jr., Rollin Nash, Jr. and Amy Jo Pierce for 5 J Aviation, LLC

Defendant's Attorney: Joe Earl Edwards, T.P. Howell, Janna Dunagan and Melanie Wilson Rughani for Bank of America

Dennis Serge Boxeur George S. Corbyn, Jr.

Stephen Moriarty and Irean Damnjanoska for Koni L. Couts-Spears

Jake Jones III, J. Brent Galyon and Dearra R. Godinez for Bruce Lyndon Craft, Frederick Randolph, Jr., Thomas Richard Huntington, International Recovery and Remarketing Group, LLC

Bradly Kent Donnell and Rodney K. Hunsinger for Atlantic Aviation Flight Services, Inc. and Trajen Flight Support, L.P.

Description: 5 J AVIATION, L.L.C. sued BANK OF AMERICA; TRAJEN FLIGHT SUPPORT L.P. d/b/a ATLANTIC AVIATION; FREDERICK RANDOLPH CRAFT, JR. an individual; BRUCE LYNDON MOORE, an individual; THOMAS RICHARD HUNTINGTON JR., an individual; and, KONI L. COUTS-SPEARS, an individual on civil fraud theories claiming:

1. Plaintiff is an Oklahoma limited liability company, with its principal place ofbusiness in Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma.

2. Defendant Bank of America is a banicing company which, among other locations, maintains locations and is actively conducting business in Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma.

3. Defendant Atlantic Aviation Flight Services, Inc. is a corporation (hereafter “Atlantic”), whkh among other locations, is actively conducting business in Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma,

4. Defendant Koni L. Couts-Spears in an individual who maintains her principal place of residence in Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma.

5. Defendant International Recovery Group, Inc. is a Florida Corporation, which has engaged in business activities in Oklahoma and whose actions as set forth below occurred in Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma.

6. Defendants Frederick Randolph Craft, Jr., Bruce Ldon Moore, and Thomas Richard Huntington, Jr. all individuals, are believed to be residents of other states, but their actions set forth herein all occurred within Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma.

7. All of the relevant facts and events complained of herein occurred and took place within Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma. Therefore, this Honorable Court has jurisdiction over this matter.

FACTS

8. Co-Defendant Koni L. Couts-Spears (“Couts-Spears”) previously owned Cavity Cottage Aviation, L.L. C. (“Cavity Cottage”).

9. At the relevant time, Cavity Cottage owned a certain aircraft particularly described as: a 2005 Cirrus Aircraft, Model Number SR22-GTS, Serial Number 1728, FAA registration number N73 IAT (hereafter “Aircraft”).

10. On or about August 1, 2007, Couts-Spears caused Cavity Cottage to sell the Aircraft to Plaintiff. As ‘part of the sales transaction, Cavity Cottage and Couts-Spears were shown to be the “Seller”. As part of the sales transaction, Cavity Cottage and Couts-Spears guaranteed clear title to Plaintiff regarding Plaintiff’s purchase of the subject Aircraft.

11. Since August 2007, to this date, Plaintiff has been and is the owner of the subject Aircraft, and from August, 2007 until Thursday, February 12, 2009, was in the exclusive possession and control of the same.

12. In the late afternoon or early evening of Wednesday, February 11, 2009, it came to the attention ofPlaintiff’s owner and representative, Joseph W. Bowie (“Bowie”), that Co-Defendant Frederick Randolph Craft, Jr., (“Craft”), in the course of his association with Co-Defendant International Recovery Group (“Recovery Group”) had received a request from Co-Defendant Bank of America (“Bank”) to repossess Plaintiff’s Aircraft which was then being hangared at Wiley Post Airport, in Bethany, Oklahoma.

13. At the meeting on February 11, 2009, Plaintiffs representative, Joseph W. Bowie, met with Defendant Craft and Defendants Bruce Lyndon Moore (“Moore”) and Thomas Richard Huntington, Jr. “Huntington”), regarding their efforts to repossess the Aircraft on behalf of Bank.

14. Plaintiffverilybelieves that Defendants Huntington and Moore (collectively “Pilots”) were retained by Craft and Recovery Group to assist Craft and Recovery Group in repossessing the subject Aircraft, all for the benefit of Bank.

15. At the meeting on February 11, serving as a witness to the discussions between the parties was an agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigations (“FBI Agent”).

16. When Bowie first discovered that Defendants Craft, Huntington and Moore were at Wiley Post Airport attempting to locate the Aircraft for the purpose of repossessing the same, said Defendants advised Bowie and the FBI Agent that they were retained by the Bank to repossess the Aircraft due to idefault of Couts-Spears and Cavity Cottage’s failure to pay a loan that Couts-Spears and Cavity Cottage had previously made with Bank. Prior to that time, Plaintiff and Bowie had no knowledge about any purported loan agreement existing between Been and Couts-Spears and had no knowledge that Bank claimed any type of lien upon the Aircraft.

17. Bowie requested Craft to provide Bowie a copy of whatever documents Bank of America and Craft relied upon to verify the Aircraft was or is subject to a lien in favor ofBank, and a copy of whatever documents Defendant Craft relied upon authorizing him to attempt to repossess the Aircraft. Despite such requests, Defendant Craft refused to provide Bowie any documentation whatsoever.

18. At the meeting, on behalf of Plaintiff, Bowie adamantly informed the Defendants who were at the meeting that he objected to said Defendants repossessing Plaintiff’s Aircraft, that he had no knowledge of any prior loan agreement existing between Couts-Spears and Cavity Cottage, and that Plaintiff did not agree to voluntarily permit said Defendants to “self-help” repossess the Aircraft and that any attempt by said Defendants would be a “breach of the peace”.

19. In an effort to accomplish the goal of Craft, Huntington, Moore and Recovery Group, all for the benefit of Bank, Defendant Craft utilized trickery, deceit and fraud, by making misrepresentations to Bowie and the FBI Agent, which such statements included, but are not limited to, the effect that:

a. Said Defendants promised they would not attempt to repossess the Aircraft because they knew that such repossession would be a breach of the peace;

b. That they (Co-Defendants Craft, Moore and Huntington) only wished to take photographs of the Aircraft, to visually inspect the Aircraft to insure its outward physical condition;

c. Since Plaintiff objected to the repossession, and therefore any repossession would be a “breach of the peace”, said Defendants represented that they only wanted copies of paperwork evidencing Plaintiff’s ownership in the Aircraft.

d. Defendant’s promised that after obtaining copies of all of Plaintiff’s proof of ownership and the sale transaction, that Defendants Craft, Huntington and Moore would then return to Florida, deliver all of the paperwork to the appropriate Bank officer, and then “let the attorneys work it out”.

20. To further their efforts to perpetrate deceit, trickery and fraud upon Plaintiff, Defendant Craft asked Bowie to remove the Manufacturer’s Airworthiness Certificate and Maintenance Logs from the Aircraft by making the affirmative statement that Bowie, as a Pilot, would know that under applicable Federal Aviation Administration rules and regulations, Pilots are not eligible to file an Aircraft without the Manufacturer’s Airworthiness Certificate being inside the Aircraft at any time the Aircraft is being flown.

21. Craft enticed Bowie to remove the Manufacturer’s Airworthiness Certificate and the maintenance logs for the purpose of deceiving Bowie into believing that by virtue of Bowie having physical possession of the Manufacturer’s Airworthiness Certificate and the Maintenance Logs, that it would be “illegal” to fly the Aircraft, thereby deceiving and tricking Bowie into believing that by virtue ofremoving the Manufacturer’s Airworthiness Certificate and the Maintenance Logs from the Aircraft that it would be impossible for the Defendants to repossess the Aircraft without Bowie’s knowledge and consent and Bowie’s turning over possession of the said Airworthiness Certificate and the Maintenance Logs.

22. After the Co-Defendants, as set forth immediately above, made all of their representations to Plaintiff and the FBI Agent, as a witness, Plaintiff then furnished copies of all of its documents involving Plaintiffs purchase of the Aircraft from Cavity Cottage and Couts-Spears.

23. In addition, having received said Defendants’ promises and guarantees that they would not attempt to repossess the Aircraft, including Defendant Craft’s affirmative statement that “(he) has been in the repossession business a long time, knows the rules, and is not going to do anything that is a breach of the peace”, Craft then enticed Plaintiff into moving the Aircraft to Co Defendant Atlantic Aviation Flight Services, Inc.’s hangar. Without the use of such trickery, deceit and fraud, said Defendants would not have been able to repossess the Aircraft.

24. Having received Defendants’ assurances and promises that the Defendants would not attempt to repossess the Aircraft, acting on behalf of Plaintiff, Bowie then arranged to have the Aircraft moved into a general hangar managed and maintained exclusively by Defendant Atlantic.

25. Bowie requested Atlantic’s assistance in storing the Aircraft for up to 30 days, which Atlantic agreed to do in exchange for being compensated for such storage.

26. Having received Atlantic’s assurances that it would store and protect the Aircraft while the Aircraft was in its care, possession and custody, Bowie then moved the Aircraft to Atlantic’s hangar, and Atlantic’s personnel then took possession, control and custody of the Aircraft an moved it inside Atlantic’s hangar.

27. Once the Aircraft was moved to Atlantic’s hangar, Defendants Craft, Moore and Huntington then conducted their physical inspection of the Aircraft and took numerous photographs. At all relevant times, Bowie, on behalf of Plaintiff and the FBI Agent were present and witnessed the statements made by said Defendants and their respective actions in inspecting and photographing the said Aircraft.

28. After completing their inspection of the Aircraft and taking their photographs, Defendants Craft, Huntington and Moore again assured Plaintiff that they would not attempt to repossess the Aircraft and that they would simply return to Florida to return all of the paperwork, photographs and inspection report to Bank’s appropriate officer.

29. Having received Defendant Craft’s assurances that the Defendants would not attempt to repossess the Aircraft, all of the parties left Atlantic’s hangar and went their separate ways, leaving the Aircraft in Atlantic’s exclusive care and custody for the benefit of Plaintiff.

30. At approximately noon, on Thursday, February 12, 2009, Defendants Craft, Huntington and Moore returned to the offices of Atlantic, without first notifying Bowie or any other representative of Plaintiff.

31. Defendant Huntington requested that Atlantic give possession and control of the Aircraft to Defendants Huntington, Moore and Craft.

32. At all relevant times, Atlantic had actual knowledge that the Aircraft belonged to Plaintiff and/or its representative, Bowie.

33. Defendants Craft, Huntington and Moore then requested that Atlantic deliver possession of the Aircraft to them (Craft, Huntington and Moore).

34. Atlantic then charged $100.00 for storing the Aircraft from the evening before, to the next day, Thursday, February 12, 2009.

35. Atlantic also had actual knowledge that it was Defendants Craft, Huntington and Moore’s intent to remove the Aircraft and fly it to another location, as confirmed by Atlantic selling fuel for the Aircraft to Defendants’ Huntington, Moore and Craft.

36. After Atlantic delivered Plaintiff’s Aircraft to Defendants, and having assisted said Defendants in removing the Aircraft from Wiley Post Airport by selling said Defendants fuel to accomplish Defendants wrongful actions, Defendants Craft, Huntington and Moore caused the Aircraft to leave Wiley Post Airport to a location unknown to Plaintiff.

37. That all of the acts and actions taken by Defendants Craft, Huntington and Moore where at all times for the benefit of themselves, Recovery Group and Bank.

38. That at all relevant times, Craft was and is an authorized agent of Recovery Group.

39. That at all relevant times, Craft and Recovery Group were acting as the authorized agent and representative of Bank.

40. That at all relevant times, the promises, representations and statements made by Craft, Huntington and Moore to Bowie were witnessed by the F.B.L Agent.

41. That Bank accepted the delivery of the Aircraft from Defendants Craft, Huntington, Moore and Recovery Group, all for Banlc’s benefit, and all to the detriment and loss of Plaintiff

42. That Bank is now attempting to sell the Aircraft, without giving Plaintiff any notice whatsoever, despite Bank having actual knowledge of Plaintiffs ownership interest in the Aircraft..

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(for Wrongful Repossession and Breach of the Peace) (as against Defendants Bank of America, International Recovery Group, Inc., Frederick Randolph Craft, Jr., Thomas Richard Huntington, Jr. and Bruce Lyndon Moore, only)

COMES NOW Plaintiff, and for its First Cause of Action against Defendants Bank of American, International Recovery Group, Inc., Frederick Randolf Craft, Jr., Thomas Richard Huntington, Jr. and Bruce Lyndon Moore, (“Bank Group Defendants”), alleges and states as follows:

43. To the extent relevant, Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the facts, statements and allegations contained above, the same as if set forth fully herein.

44. Bank Group Defendants wrongfully repossessed the aircraft by breaching the peace in the process of gaining possession of said aircraft.

45. Defendants breached the peace by using trickery, stealth and fraud, and flying the aircraft in violation of federal law.

46. At all relevant times, Defendants Craft, Huntington and Moore were acting on behalf of International Recovery Group, Inc. and Bank of America.

47. At the February 1 1th, 2009 meeting, Plaintiff, by and through its representative Bowie, clearly resisted the repossession of the aircraft, to which Defendant Craft acquiesced and stated he would not attempt to take possession of the aircraft.

48. In the face of Bowie’s clear resistance, Defendants Craft, Huntington and Moore proceeded under a fraudulent scheme to deceive and trick Plaintiff in order to gain possession of the aircraft and fly it out of the state in violation of Federal Aviation Regulations.

49. That the Bank Group Defendants engaged in trickery, deceit and fraud to wrongfully gain possession of the Aircraft, which such actions constituted a “breach of the peace”.

50. Defendant Bank accepted the benefit of Co-Defendants Craft, Huntington and Moore’s actions, and Bank is now attempting to sell the Aircraft without giving Plaintiff any notice of any kind regarding Bank’s attempt to sell the same.

51. By reason of said Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has already sustained, suffered or incurred losses well in excess of$ 10,000.00. Plaintiff is entitled to recover such actual damages of and from Defendant Craft, Huntington. Moore, International Recovery Group, Inc. and Bank of America, jointly and severally, together with interest thereon as provided by law.

52. ‘Further, to punish said Defendants, to deter similar conduct in the future, and to serve as an example to said Defendants, and others, Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive or exemplary damages in an amount in excess of $10,000.00 of and against Defendants Craft, Huntington, Moore, International Recovery Group, Inc. and Bank of America, jointly and severally.

53. Plaintiff has been compelled to employ the services of an attorney to bring this action, and is entitled to recover all of its costs and a reasonable attorney’s as incurred herein.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiff prays that it have and recover] judgment as set forth hereafter in its combined prayer for relief.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTJON

(for Conversion)

(as to Defendants Bank of America, International Recovery Group, Inc., Frederick Randolph Craft, Jr., Thomas Richard Huntington, Jr. and Bruce Lyndon Moore, only)

COMES NOW Plaintiff, and for its Second Cause of Action against Defendants Bank of America, International Recovery Group, Inc., Frederick Randolph Craft, Jr., Thomas Richard Huntington, Jr. and Bruce Lyndon Moore, (“Bank Group Defendants”), alleges and states as follows:

54. To the extent relevant, Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the facts, statements and allegations contained above, the same as if set forth fully herein.

55 Plaintiff is the owner of the Aircraft, which was stored at Atlantic Aviation’s hangar at the time of the conversion.

56. Bank Group Defendants intentionally and wrongfully took possession of the Aircraft without Plaintiffs knowledge and consent.

57. Bank Group Defendants were only able to obtain possession of the Aircraft by use of trickery, deceit and fraud, all as set forth above.

58. By reason of the Bank Group Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has already sustained, suffered or incurred losses well in excess of $10,000.00. Plaintiff is entitled to recover such actual damages of and from Defendants Bank of America, Recovery Group, Craft, Huntington and Moore, jointly and severally, together with interest thereon as provided by law.

59. Further, to punish said Defendants, to deter similar conduct in the future, and to serve as an example to said Defendants, and others, Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive or exemplary damages in an amount in excess of $10,000.00 of and against Defendants Bank of America, Recovery Group, Craft, Huntington and Moore, jointly and severally.

60. Plaintiff has been compelled to employ the services of an attorney to bring this action, and is entitled to recover all of its costs and a reasonable attorney’s as incurred herein.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiff prays that it have and recover judgment as set forth hereafter in its combined prayer for relief

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(for Fraud)

(as against Defendants Bank of America, International Recovery Group, Inc., Frederick Randolf Craft, Jr., Thomas Richard Huntington, Jr. and Bruce Lyndon Moore, , py)

COME NOW Plaintiff and for its Third Cause of Action against Defendants Bank of America, International Recovery Group, Inc., Frederick Randolf Craft, Jr., Thomas Richard Huntington, Jr. and Bruce Lyndon Moore (“Bank Group Defendants”), alleges and states as follows:

61. To the extent relevant, Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the facts, statements and allegations contained above, the same as if set forth fully herein.

62. Defendants Craft, Huntington and Moore intentionally made certain false and deceptive promises, representations and statements to Bowie that were intended to deceive Plaintiff in order for Defendants to proceed with their wrongful repossession and resulting breach of the peace.

63. Defendants’ deception constitutes actual fraud.

64. By reason of the conduct and actions identified above, and other actions of the Bank Group Defendants, said Defendants have perpetrated a fraud upon Plaintiff, and have defrauded and deceived Plaintiff.

65. By reason of the Bank Group Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has already sustained, suffered or incurred losses well in excess of$1O,000.00. Plaintiff is entitled to recover such actual damages of and from Defendants Craft, Huntington, Moore, International Recovery Group, Inc. and Bank of America, jointly and severally, together with interest thereon as provided by law.

66. Further, to punish the Bank Group Defendants, to deter similar conduct in the future, and to serve as an example to said Defendants, and others, Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive or exemplary damages in an amount in excess of $10,000.00 of and against Defendants Craft, Huntington, Moore, International Recovery Group, Inc. and Bank of America,jointly and severally.

67. Plaintiff has been compelled to employ the services of an attorney to bring this action, and is entitled to recover all of its costs and a reasonable attorney’s as incurred herein.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiff prays that it have and recover judgment as set forth hereafter in its combined prayer for relief FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(for Breach of Contract of Bailment and Conversion) (as against Atlantic Aviation Flight Services, Inc.)

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, and for its Fourth Cause of Action against Atlantic Aviation Flight Services, Inc., (“Atlantic”), alleges and states as follows:

68. To the extent relevant, Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the facts, statements and allegations contained above, the same as if set forth in hilly herein.

69. Part of Atlantic’s daily and customary business is hangaring (storing) aircraft for compensation.

70. On or about February 11, 2009, Plaintiff delivered the Aircraft to Atlantic for purposes of Atlantic storing and keeping the Aircraft safe and protected in its hangar.

71. Atlantic agreed to store the Aircraft owned by Plaintiff for a fee.

72. Atlantic breached its duties under, or arising in connection with, the bailment of the Aircraft.

73. Atlantic failed to use appropriate care for the preservation of the Aircraft and allowed Defendants Craft, Huntington and Moore, to take the Aircraft owned by Plaintiff on or about February 12, 2009 without Plaintiffs knowledge or consent.

74. Atlantic failed to provide notice to Plaintiff of the actions taken adverse to its interest in the Aircraft.

75. Atlantic breached its absolute duty to Plaintiff by delivering the Aircraft to Defendants Craft, Huntington, Moore and Recovery Group, who are not the true owner(s), nor authorized by Plaintiff to receive the aircraft and has therefore engaged in conversion and a breach of the contract of bailment.

76. Atlantic profited by selling fuel to said Defendants, which such fuel sale would not have occurred if the Aircraft had remained in Atlantic’s hangar as instructed by Plaintiff.

77. Atlantic knew or should have known of Defendant’s Craft, Huntington and Moore’s intent to fly the Aircraft to an unknown location due to Atlantic’s sale of fuel to said Defendants.

78. Plaintiff has sustained, suffered or incurred damages and losses well in excess of $10,000.00, and Plaintiff is entitled to have and recover such damages from Atlantic, together with interest thereon as provided by law.

79. Plaintiff has been compelled to employ the services of an attorney to bring this action, and Plaintiff is entitled to recover its costs and a reasonable attorneys fee as incurred herein.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiff prays that it have and recover judgment as set forth hereafter in its combined prayer for relief

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(for Bad Faith)

(as against Atlantic Aviation Flight Services, Inc., only)

COMES NOW Plaintiff, and for its Fifth Cause of Action against Defendant Atlantic Aviation Flight Services, Inc., alleges and states as follows:

80. To the extent relevant, Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the facts, statements and allegations contained above, the same as if set forth fully herein.

81. At all relevant times, Defendant Atlantic had actual knowledge that Plaintiff, by and through its agent Bowie, was the owner of the Aircraft.

82. Plaintiff placed the Aircraft in Atlantic’s exclusive possession for storage and safe keeping.

83. Plaintiff agreed to pay the storage fees that Atlantic would charge while the Aircraft was in Atlantic’s possession and safe keeping.

84. Without contacting or notifying Plaintiff, Atlantic delivered the Aircraft to the Bank Group Defendants.

85. Atlantic profited by delivering the Aircraft to the Bank Group Defendant’s by selling fuel to said Defendants.

86. That if the Aircraft had remained in Atlantic’s possession as instructed by Plaintiff, then the Bank Group Defendants would not have purchased the fuel, and Atlantic would not have profited from the sale of said fuel.

87. Atlantic knew, or should have known, that by virtue of selling fuel to the Bank Group Defendants, that it was said Defendants intent to fly the Aircraft to another location.

88. That the actions of Atlantic resulted in Atlantic receiving a profit that it would otherwise have not received, all to the loss and detriment of Plaintiff.

89. That the actions of Atlantic were wrongful and in bad faith, all of which has resulted in loss and damages being sustained by Plaintiff,

90. By reason of Atlantic’s conduct, Plaintiff has already sustained, suffered or incurred losses well in excess of$ 10,000.00. Plaintiff is entitled to recover such actual damages of and from Defendant Atlantic, together with interest thereon as provided by law.

91. Further, to punish Defendant Atlantic, to deter similar conduct in the future, and to serve as an example to said Defendants, and others, Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive or exemplary damages in an amount in excess of $10,000.00 of and against Defendant Atlantic.

92. Plaintiff has been compelled to employ the services of an attorney to bring this action, and is entitled to recover all of its costs and a reasonable attorney’s as incurred herein.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiff prays that it have and recover judgment as set forth hereafter in its combined prayer for relief

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(for Breach of Warranty of Action)

(as against Koni L. Couts-Spears, only)

COMES NOW Plaintiff and for its Sixth Cause of Action against Defendant Koni L. CoutsSpears, (“Couts-Spears”), alleges and states as follows:

93. To the extent relevant, Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the facts, statements and allegations contained above, the same as if set forth fully herein.

94. At all relevant times Couts-Spears was the owner and control person of Cavity Cottage.

95. Couts-Spears represented to Plaintiff that the Aircraft was free and clear of claims, mortgages and liens of any third party when Couts-Spears was negotiating the sale of the Aircraft to Plaintiff

96. Couts-Spears closed the sale of the Aircraft to Plaintiff again representing the Aircraft to be free and clear of mortgages and liens.

97. That Plaintiffwould not have purchased the Aircraft from Cavity Cottage without the representations and assurances of Couts-Spears that the Aircraft was free and clear of any mortgage or lien of any party.

98. Plaintiff is not privy to any purported loan transactions existing between Couts-Spears and Bank. However, if any such loan transaction does exist in which Couts-Spears should be required to indemnify and hold Plaintiff harmless from the claims of any third party, including but not limited to Bank of America.

99. Plaintiff has been compelled to employ the services of an attorney to bring this action, and is entitled to recover all of its costs and a reasonable attorney’s as incurred herein.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiff prays that it have and recover judgment as set forth hereafter in its combined prayer for relief

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(for Fraud)

(as against Koni L. Couts-Spears, jjjy)

100. To the extent relevant, Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the facts, statements and allegations contained above, the same as if set forth ftilly herein.

101. Couts-Spears made certain representations to Plaintiff to induce Plaintiff to purchase the Aircraft, all as set forth above.

102. Plaintiff relied on Couts-Spears representations as setforth above.

103. Upon information and belief Plaintiff is now under the belief and understanding that despite Couts-Spears representations and promises to the contrary, Couts-Spears may have caused Cavity Cottage to pledge the Aircraft as collateral for a loan obtained by either Cavity Cottage and/or Couts-Spears from Bank.

104. Upon further information and belief, Plaintiff is now also under the belief and understanding that after closing the sale of the Aircraft to Plaintiff, that Couts-Spears, either on her own behalf, on behalf of Cavity Cottage, or on the behalf of both of them, caused certain payments to be made to Bank as payment on a certain loan in which the Aircraft had been pledged as collateral.

105. If such a loan exists, and if the Aircraft was in fact pledged as collateral to secure said loan, then the representations and promises made by Couts-Spears to Plaintiff’s representative and owner were false, misleading and were intentionally made for the purpose of inducing Plaintiff to purchase the Aircraft.

106. Due to the fraudulent actions of Couts-Spears, Plaintiff has incurred substantial damages, losses and expenses well in excess of S 10,000, and Plaintiff is entitled to have and recover such damages, losses and expenses from Couts-Spears, together with interest thereon as provided by law.

107. Further, to punish Couts-Spears, to deter similar conduct in the future, and to serve as an example to said Defendant, and others, Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive or exemplary damages in an amount in excess of $10,000.00 of and against Defendant Couts-Spears.

108. Plaintiff has been compelled to employ the services of an attorney to bring this action, and is entitled to recover all of its costs and a reasonable attorney’s as incurred herein.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiff prays that it have and recover judgment as set forth hereafter in its combined prayer for relief EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(for Declaratory Judgment)

(as against all Defendants)

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, and for its Eighth Cause of Action against all Defendants, alleges and states as follows:

109. To the extent relevant, and except as otherwise set forth herein, Plaintiff readopts, realleges and incorporates by reference herein the facts, statements and allegations contained above, the same as set forth in fully below.

110. Couts-Spears promised and represented to Plaintiff that there were no liens or encumbrances on the Aircraft at the time the Aircraft was sold to Plaintiff.

111. Craft advised Plaintiff that Bank has a lien on the Aircraft when the conflict arose with Plaintiffs representative on February 11, 2009.

112. Craft, as the Bank’s representative, refused to provide any documentation of the Bank’s alleged lien, when requested by Plaintiffs representative on February 11, 2009.

113. A dispute exists between Plaintiff and Defendant Bank as to whether or not Bank has a valid lien. Plaintiff is now concerned that one or more of the other Co-Defendants may also claim some type of right, title, interest, equity, ownership, mortgage or lien in or on the Aircraft.

114. Plaintiff requests that the Court resolve this dispute pursuant to Oklahoma’s Declaratory Judgment Act, 12 O.S. § 1651-1657, thereby declaring that no Defendant has a valid lien, mortgage, or any other type of right, title, interest, equity or ownership in the Aircraft.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiff prays that it have and recover judgment as set forth hereafter in its combined prayer for relief

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(for Injunctive Relief)

(as against Bank of America)

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, and for its Ninth Cause of Action against Bank of America, alleges and states as follows:

115. To the extent relevant, and except as otherwise set forth herein, Plaintiff readopts, realleges and incorporates by reference herein the facts, statements and allegations contained above, the same as set forth in full below.

116. Until a declaratory judgment is rendered determining the existence and validity of Bank’s alleged lien, Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief in accordance with 12 0.5. §1381, et seq.

117. Plaintiff is entitled to the issuance of a temporary restraining order, the issuance of a temporary injunction, and the award of injunctive relief as part and parcel of the judgment and relief sought by Plaintiff herein, thereby enjoining Bank from selling, transferring, concealing, secreting, hiding, destroying or otherwise disposing of the Aircraft described above.

118. Injunctive relief is necessary to maintain the status quo, in order to protect, preserve and maintain the Aircraft, and in order to prevent the sale, dissipation or disappearance of Plaintiffs Aircraft, and to prevent irreparable damage and injury to Plaintiff.

119. Further, injunctive relief is necessary to maintain the value of the Aircraft as it’s value is greatly diminished by the absence of the Manufactures Airworthiness Certificate needed for flight and the Maintenance Logs which are in Plaintiffs possession.

120. Injunctive relief is necessary to protect the rights of Plaintiff.

121. If Defendants were to allowed to sell the Aircraft, which is directly adverse and harmful to Plaintiff, any eventual judgment obtained herein might be rendered ineffectual.

122. Issuance of a temporary restraining order is necessary to prevent immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage which would or will otherwise occur or result.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiff prays that it have and recover judgment as set forth hereafter in its combined prayer for relief.

COMBINED PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiff 5 J Aviation, L.L.C., prays that it have and recover judgment of and against Defendants as follows:

(a) that Plaintiff have and recover judgment on its First Cause of Action of and against Defendants, Bank of America, International Recovery Group, Inc., Frederick Randolph Craft, Jr., Bruce Lyndon Moore and Thomas Richard Huntington, Jr. and each of them, jointly and severally, for actual damages in an amount in excess of$10,000.00, together with punitive or exemplary damages in an amount in excess of $10,000.00, together with interest thereon as provided bylaw, plus Plaintiffs attorneys fees and costs as incurred herein, all as set forth in Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action; and,

(b) that Plaintiff have and recover judgment on its Second Cause of Action of and against Defendants, Bank of America, International Recovery Group, Inc., Frederick Randolph Craft, Jr., Bruce Lyndon Moore and Thomas Richard Huntington, Jr. and each of them, jointly and severally, for actual damages in an amount in excess of $10,000.00, together with punitive or exemplary damages in an amount in excess of $10,000.00, together with interest thereon as provided bylaw, plus Plaintiffs attorneys fees and costs as incurred herein, all as set forth in Plaintiffs Second Cause of Action; and,

(c) that Plaintiff have and recover judgment on its Third Cause of Action of and against Defendants, Bank of America, International Recovery Group, Inc., Frederick Randolph Craft, Jr., Bruce Ldon Moore and Thomas Richard Huntington, Jr. and each of them, jointly and severally, for actual damages in an amount in excess of $10,000.00, together with punitive or exemplary damages in an amount in excess of$ 10,000.00, together with interest thereon as provided bylaw, plus Plaintiffs attorneys fees and costs as incurred herein, all as set forth in Plaintiff’s Third Cause of Action; and,

(d) that Plaintiff have and recover judgment on its Fourth Cause of Action of and against Defendant, Atlantic Aviation Flight Services, Inc. for actual damages in an amount in excess of $10,000.00, together with interest thereon as provided by law, plus Plaintiffs attorneys fees and costs as incurred herein, all as set forth in Plaintiff’s Fourth Cause of Action; and,

(e) that Plaintiff have and recover judgment on its Fifth Cause of Action of and against Defendant, Atlantic Aviation Flight Services, Inc. for actual damages in an amount in excess of $10,000.00, together with punitive or exemplary damages in an amount in excess of S 10,000.00, together with interest thereon as provided bylaw, plus Plaintiffs attorneys fees and costs as incurred herein, all as set forth in Plaintiffs Fifth Cause of Action; and,

(f) that Plaintiff have and recover judgment on its Sixth Cause of Action of and against Defendant Koni L. Couts-Spears, thereby indemnifying and holding Plaintiff harmless from any and all losses, damages and expenses Plaintiff may incur as a result of said Defendant’s actions as set forth herein, all as set forth in Plaintiffs Sixth Cause of Action; and,

(g) that Plaintiff have and recover judgment on its Seventh Cause of Action of and against Defendant, Koni L. Couts-Spcars, Inc. for actual damages in an amount in excess of $10,000.00, together with punitive or exemplary damages in an amount in excess of $10,000.00, together with interest thereon as provided bylaw, plus Plaintiffs attorneys fees and costs as incurred herein, all as set forth in Plaintiffs Seventh Cause of Action; and,

(h) That this Honorable Court issue its order declaring that no Defendant herein has any claim or right, title, interest, equity, lien, mortgage or ownership in the Aircraft, and that Plaintiff owns said Aircraft free and clear of any type of claim that could be asserted by any Defendant herein, all as set forth in Plaintiffs Eighth Cause of Action; and,

(i) that this Honorable Court issue a Temporary Restraining Order, and a Temporary Injunction, prohibiting and restraining Bank of America its agents, and all Co-Defendants (excluding Defendant Koni L. Couts-Spears) from selling, transferring, concealing, secreting, hiding, destroying or otherwise disposing of the Aircraft pending the further order of the Court, all as set forth in Plaintiffs Ninth Cause of Action; and,

(j) that Plaintiff be awarded all of its attorney frees and costs incurred herein, along with any and all other relief this Honorable Court deems just and proper.


Defendant International Recovery Group, Inc.'s answer and affirmative defense:

1. INTERNATIONAL RECOVERY GROUP, INC., denies allegations nos. 61 through 67, and 109 through 122.

2. INTERNATIONAL RECOVERY GROUP, NC., has no knowledge regarding any and all other allegations, and therefore all such allegations are denied.

3. As a defense, INTERNATIONAL RECOVERY GROUP, INC., states that it is a dissolved Florida corporation and is not conducting business, including the times set forth by Plaintiff; has never procured aircraft at the request of Bank of America; was not involved in any manner in the allegations set forth by Plaintiff; and sold all its assets in November 2005 to International Recovery and Remarketing, LLC, an active Florida limited liability corporation.

4. On reason and belief, International Recovery and Remarketing, LLC, an active Florida limited liability corporation, has been and is engaged in aircraft repossession.


See Court Docket

Outcome: 0-21-2013 CTFREE - 76391557 Oct 24 2013 10:04:07:410AM - $ 0.00

JUDGE DAVIS: CASE COMES ON FOR JURY TRIAL. PLAINTIFF APPEARS WITH ATTORNEYS GEORGE CORBYN AND AMY PIERCE. ATTORNEYS JOE EDWARDS, MELANIE WILSON RUGHANI, BRADLEY DONNELL. RODNEY HUNSINGER, JAKE JONES, DEARRA GODINEZ, AND STEPHEN MORIARTY APPEAR WITH AND ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS. BOTH SIDES ANNOUNCE READY. (30) JURORS SWORN TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. (22) JURORS CALLED TO THE BOX. COURT INQUIRES OF BOX. JURY EXAMINATION BY PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS, THEN PASSED FOR CAUSE. PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES. ALL CHALLENGES CALLED. (14) JURORS SWORN TO TRY CASE. COURT'S INSTRUCTION #1. OPENING STATEMENT MADE BY PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS. WITNESS SWORN, TESTIMONY HEARD, EXHIBITS OFFERED. COURT ADMONISHES JURY AND IS IN RECESS UNTILL 10/22/2013 @ 9AM. COURT REPORTER MARILYN HODGEN.

10-22-2013 CTFREE - 76392047 Oct 24 2013 10:03:52:880AM - $ 0.00

JUDGE DAVIS: JURY TRIAL CONTINUES AFTER NIGHT'S RECESS. WITNESSES SWORN, TESTIMONY HEARD, EXHIBITS OFFERED. COURT ADMONISHES JURY AND IS IN RECESS UNTIL 10/23/2013 @ 9AM. COURT REPORTER MARILYN HODGEN

10-23-2013 CTFREE - 76392093 Oct 24 2013 10:06:38:870AM - $ 0.00

JUDGE DAVIS: JURY TRIAL CONTINUES AFTER NIGHT'S RECESS. WITNESSES SWORN, TESTIMONY HEARD, EXHIBITS OFFERED. PLAINTIFF RESTS. DEFENDANTS CALL WITNESSES, SWORN TESTIMONY HEARD, EXHIBITS OFFERED. COURT ADMONISHES JURY AND IS IN RECESS UNTIL 10/23/2013 @ 9AM. COURT REPORTER MARILYN HODGEN

10-23-2013 B - 76404648 Oct 25 2013 9:10:05:780AM - $ 0.00

PLAINTIFF AND THIRD PARTY DEFENDANT'S TRIAL BRIEF OBJECTION TO ADMISSION OF ABSENT DEFENDANT CRAFT'S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY

10-23-2013 OBJ - 76404684 Oct 25 2013 9:11:29:350AM - $ 0.00

DEFENDANT FREDERICK RANDOLPH CRAFT, JR., THOMAS RICHARD HUNTINGTON, JR., AND INTERNATIONAL RECOVERY & REMARKETING GROUP, LLC'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS Document Available (#1023219602)

10-23-2013 OBJ - 76404735 Oct 25 2013 9:13:06:020AM - $ 0.00

DEFENDANTS BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. AND TRAJEN FLIGHT SUPPORT LP'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS Document Available (#1023219606)

10-23-2013 B - 76408394 Oct 25 2013 10:47:54:480AM - $ 0.00

DEFENDANTS' BENCH BRIEF REGARDING DEPOSITION OF RANDY CRAFT

10-23-2013 B - 76408451 Oct 25 2013 10:49:15:810AM - $ 0.00

PLAINTIFF 5J AVIATION, LLC AND THIRD PARTY DEFENDANT JEREMY BOWIE'S TRIAL BRIEF REGARDING IRG'S INVASION OF PRIVACY CLAIM

10-24-2013 CTFREE - 76417424 Oct 28 2013 8:32:53:953AM - $ 0.00

JUDGE DAVIS: JURY TRIAL CONTINUES AFTER NIGHT'S RECESS. WITNESSES SWORN, TESTIMONY HEARD, EXHIBITS OFFERED. DEFENDANTS REST. COURT ADMONISHES JURY AND IS IN RECESS UNTIL 10/24/2013 @ 9AM. COURT REPORTER MARILYN HODGEN

10-25-2013 DISPJP 1 Couts-Spears, Koni L. 76431435 Oct 29 2013 9:01:57:873AM - $ 0.00

JUDGE DAVIS: JURY TRIAL CONTINUES AFTER NIGHT'S RECESS. COURT'S INSTRUCTION TO THE JURY. CLOSING ARGUMENTS MADE BY PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS. ALTERNATE JURORS EXCUSED. JURY RETIRES TO DELIBERATE, RETURNS WITH VERDICT AND FINDS IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF AGAINST KONI COUTS-SPEARS IN THE AMOUNT OF $164,522.00 FOR BEACH OF WARRANTY AND $1,452.00 FOR FRAUD. JURY FINDS IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF AGAINST BANK OF AMERICA IN THE AMOUNT OF $0.00 FOR FRAUD. JURY FINDS IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF AGAINST INTERNATIONAL RECOVERY & REMARKETING GROUP, LLC IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,000.00 FOR WRONGFUL REPOSSESSION AND $1,000.00 FOR FRAUD. JURY FINDS IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF AGAINST RANDY CRAFT IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,000.00 FOR WRONGFUL REPOSSESSION, AND $3,000.00 FOR FRAUD. JURY FINDS IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF AGAINST TRAJEN FLIGHT SUPPORT D/B/A ATLANTIC AVIATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $470.00 FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT. SECOND STAGE. COURT'S SECOND STAGE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY.WITNESSES CALLED, SWORN TESTIMONY HEARD, EXHIBITS OFFERED. JURY RETIRES TO DELIBERATE, RETURNS WITH VERDICT AND FIND IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF IN THE AMOUNT OF $80,000.00 AGAINST KONI SPEARS, AND $67,500.00 AGAINST RANDALL CRAFT.JURY DISCHARGED, CLERK DIRECTED TO FILE AND RECORD VERDICT ACCORDINGLY.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: