CJ-2026-00053 - John Goins, and Mary Fowler-Goins v. City of Ponca City, and Ponca City Utility Authority

What's This Case About?

Let’s cut straight to the part that will make you gag into your morning coffee: On July 8, 2025, John and Mary Goins came home to what can only be described as a horror movie set—except instead of fake blood and severed limbs, their house in Ponca City, Oklahoma, was flooded with raw sewage. We’re not talking a backed-up toilet or a smelly drain. We’re talking full-on sewage tsunami. And now, they’re suing the city and its utility authority for $75,000 because, apparently, flushing should not be a biohazard event.

Meet the Goinses: John and Mary, a couple just trying to live a quiet life in their home at 2713 Homestead North. They pay their taxes. They pay their utility bills. They probably even compost. In return, they expect something basic—something so fundamental it barely needs stating: that when they flush the toilet, the waste goes away, not up through the floor. But the defendants in this case—the City of Ponca City and the Ponca City Utility Authority—are the very entities responsible for making sure that happens. They own the sewer system. They operate it. They get paid to maintain it. And somewhere between the pipes and the paperwork, they seem to have forgotten how any of it works. Or worse—they didn’t care until someone’s living room looked like a septic tank exploded.

Here’s how the nightmare unfolded: On that fateful day in July, raw sewage—yes, the full, unfiltered, biological nightmare that flows through city sewers—backed up into the Goinses’ property. It didn’t just trickle in. It flooded it. The petition doesn’t give us a blow-by-blow of the stench or the cleanup (thank God), but imagine opening your front door and being hit with the smell of a thousand bad decisions. Carpets soaked. Floors ruined. Personal belongings—photos, furniture, maybe even that heirloom quilt from Grandma—now officially classified as hazardous waste. And the worst part? According to the filing, this isn’t just a one-time disaster. The nuisance is ongoing. That means even after the initial flood, the problem hasn’t been fixed. The system is still broken. The threat is still there. Every time the toilet flushes, it’s Russian roulette with human waste.

Now, you might think, “Well, that’s gross, but is it lawsuit gross?” And the answer is: absolutely. The Goinses aren’t just mad—they’re legally armed and ready. Their attorneys, Jim Buxton and Spencer Habluetzel of the Buxton Law Group (who, by the way, are billing by the hour and probably wish their clients had a less aromatic problem), have laid out three solid claims: nuisance, negligence, and breach of contract. Let’s break that down like we’re explaining it to a jury of people who still think “res ipsa loquitur” is a Latin curse.

First up: nuisance. In legal terms, this isn’t just about being annoyed by loud neighbors or a barking dog. A nuisance is when someone’s actions—or in this case, inactions—unreasonably interfere with your ability to enjoy your property. And let’s be real: if your house smells like a port-a-potty at a music festival in July, you are not enjoying your property. The Goinses argue that the city’s failure to maintain the sewer system created both a temporary and permanent nuisance—meaning not only did they suffer during the flood, but their property value may now be permanently damaged. Who wants to buy a home with a known sewage problem? Unless you’re in the apocalypse prepping business, the answer is nobody.

Second: negligence. This one’s a classic. The city and utility authority had a duty to maintain the sewer system. They failed. People got hurt (or at least deeply traumatized). And the filing even drops the legal equivalent of a mic: res ipsa loquitur—Latin for “the thing speaks for itself.” Translation: raw sewage doesn’t just flood a house unless someone screwed up badly. You don’t need an expert to tell you that. It’s like finding a dead raccoon in your microwave—something went wrong, and it wasn’t the raccoon’s fault.

Third: breach of contract. This is the most delicious part. The Goinses pay for sewer service. It’s part of their utility bill. It’s a contract—implicit but real. You pay, they provide. But when you pay for a service and instead get a biohazard zone, that’s not service. That’s fraud with a side of E. coli. The city took their money and didn’t deliver. It’s like paying for Netflix and getting a slideshow of sewage pipes instead of Stranger Things. Unacceptable.

So what do the Goinses want? $75,000 in damages—plus a jury trial, because they’re not messing around. Is $75,000 a lot for a sewage flood? Honestly? Probably not. Cleanup alone for a full-house sewage backup can run into the tens of thousands. You’re not just replacing carpets and drywall—you’re dealing with mold remediation, air purification, possible structural damage, and professional biohazard cleaning (yes, that’s a real job, and no, you don’t want to know the details). Then there’s the emotional toll. Imagine trying to sleep in a room that still faintly smells like someone’s worst bathroom accident. There’s annoyance, and then there’s “I may need therapy just to use the toilet again.” The Goinses are also asking for abatement—which means they want the court to force the city to actually fix the damn system. Not just clean up the mess, but stop it from happening again. Which, honestly, should’ve been step one.

Now, here’s our take: The most absurd part of this whole saga isn’t just that the sewage flooded their home. It’s that the city denied the claim after being notified. They said, “Nope, not our fault,” while the Goinses were probably still scrubbing sludge off their baseboards. And the fact that this is allegedly a continuing nuisance? That means the city hasn’t fixed the underlying problem. So while the Goinses are stuck in legal limbo, every flush is a gamble. Will it go down? Or will it come up—through the floor?

We’re rooting for the Goinses. Not just because they’re the victims of what sounds like a municipal plumbing apocalypse, but because this case is a wake-up call. Cities run on infrastructure. And when the people in charge treat basic services like an afterthought, someone’s house becomes a toilet. Literally. This isn’t just about money. It’s about accountability. It’s about the fact that paying your bills should come with the basic expectation that your home won’t turn into a septic swamp.

So here’s to John and Mary Goins—two regular people who just wanted a functioning sewer system. Instead, they got a nightmare, a lawsuit, and possibly a future in public speaking about urban infrastructure failure. May their jury be merciful, their carpets be replaced, and their toilets stay where they belong.

Case Overview

$75,000 Demand Jury Trial Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court of Kay County, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Jim Buxton, and Spencer Habluetzel

Buxton Law Group

Relief Sought

$75,000 Monetary

Injunctive Relief

Plaintiffs

John Goins, and Mary Fowler-Goins individual
Rep: Jim Buxton, and Spencer Habluetzel

Defendants

City of Ponca City, and Ponca City Utility Authority government

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	nuisance	raw sewage flooded Goins' property
2	negligence	Defendants breached duty to maintain and operate sewer system
3	breach of contract	Defendants failed to provide promised sewer services

Petition Text

1,107 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF KAY COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA JOHN GOINS, AND MARY FOWLER-GOINS vs. CITY OF PONCA CITY, AND PONCA CITY UTILITY AUTHORITY, Plaintiffs, Defendants. PETITION COMES NOW, Plaintiffs, John and Mary Goins, (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) and present their causes of action pursuant to common law and pursuant to the Governmental Tort Claims Act, as codified in 51 O.S. § 151, et. seq. against the City of Ponca City and Ponca City Utility Authority, (hereinafter “Defendants”). The Plaintiffs allege and further state the following: PARTIES 1. That Plaintiffs are the residents and owners of the property located at 2713 Homestead N., Ponca City, Oklahoma 74604. 2. That the Defendant, City of Ponca City is organized and existing under the laws of the State of Oklahoma, located and doing business in Kay County, Oklahoma, and is the owner of the sewer system located within the boundaries of said municipality. 3. That the Defendant, Ponca City Utility Authority is organized and existing under the laws of the State of Oklahoma, located and doing business in Kay County, Oklahoma, and is the owner of the sewer system located within the boundaries of said municipality. 4. That all relevant events occurred in the City of Ponca City, Kay County, Oklahoma, therefore, jurisdiction and venue of this Court is proper. 5. The sewer system is solely within the exclusive control of Defendants. JURISDICTION 6. Plaintiff elects to prosecute this action pursuant to the Oklahoma Expedited Actions Act, 12 O.S. § 1775, 1-8. FACTS 7. At all times material, Defendants are responsible for the maintenance, repair, and operation of the above-described sewer system. 8. At all times material, Defendants had a contractual agreement and a duty to provide sewer services to the Plaintiffs in exchange for payment. Defendants’ duties also include the duty of “good faith and fair dealing”; duty to perform with “care, skill, reasonable expediency, and faithfulness”; and duty to perform “skillfully, carefully, diligently and in a workmanlike manner.” 9. That on or about July 8, 2025, the property located at 2713 Homestead N., Ponca City, Oklahoma 74604 was flooded with raw sewage, creating a nuisance and causing substantial property damage. 10. The injury was caused by the sewer system and actions of Defendants. 11. Such injury does not normally occur absent negligence of Defendants. 12. The Plaintiffs have properly served the Defendants with a Notice of Tort Claim for the sewer back-up event, and the Defendants has denied the claims. However, the nuisance is continuing and ongoing to date. 13. That Plaintiffs are in full compliance with the Governmental Tort Claims Act. (51 O.S. § 151, et. seq.) FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION - NUISANCE COMES NOW Plaintiffs, for their first cause of action against the Defendants, restate, adopt, and re-allege the above allegations as stated in paragraphs (1) through (13) and further allege and state as follows: 14. That Defendants had a duty to operate and maintain the City’s sewer system in a manner so as not to constitute a nuisance to the general public, including Plaintiffs. 15. That Defendants’ actions and/or inactions failed to uphold the requisite duty, the result of which amounts to a nuisance, both temporary and permanent in nature, and allows Plaintiffs to recover for the following: (a) to restore their land, improvements to personal property from temporary damages; (b) to restore land from permanent damage, including diminution in value to their land, improvements, and personal property; (c) for annoyance, inconvenience, and discomfort resulting from Defendants’ creation of a nuisance; and, (d) for monetary amounts spent and amounts that will be spent in the future in testing and investigating to determine the nature and extent of damage caused by Defendants’ creation of a nuisance. 16. The Defendants knew or should have known through actual and/or constructive knowledge that the failure to uphold its duty to Plaintiffs would result in a nuisance and accompanying damages. 17. That the manner in which the sewer system is maintained and operated constitutes a continuing and ongoing nuisance, both private and public. 18. Plaintiffs also seek abatement of the nuisance. 19. That as a result of Defendants’ creation of a nuisance, the Plaintiffs have suffered harm in an amount in excess of SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($75,000.00). SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION - NEGLIGENCE COMES NOW Plaintiffs, for their second cause of action against the Defendants restate, adopt and re-allege the following as stated in paragraphs (1) through (19) and further allege and state as follows: 20. That Defendants breached its duty, and such breach was the direct and proximate result of acts and omissions of negligence by the Defendants, its agents, servants, and employees in the following manners: (a) In negligently maintaining and operating the sewer system by allowing it to become obstructed in the first instance; (b) In failing to properly perform maintenance on the sewer system; (c) In the negligent manner and form of the work undertaken on the sewer system and the continued negligent operation of the sewer system; (d) that res ipsa loquitur applies to this case. 21. That as a result of Defendants' negligence, the Plaintiffs have suffered harm in an amount in excess of SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($75,000.00). THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION- BREACH OF CONTRACT COMES NOW Plaintiffs, for their third cause of action against the Defendants restate, adopt and re-allege the following as stated in paragraphs (1) through (21) and further allege and state as follows: 22. The parties formed a contract for sewer services whereby Defendants would provide sewer services in exchange for payment. 23. That Defendants breached the contract, and such breach was the direct and proximate result of acts and omissions of the Defendants, its agents, servants, and employees in the following manners: (a) In breaching its duties and operating the sewer system by allowing it to become obstructed in the first instance; (b) In failing to properly perform maintenance on the sewer system; (c) In the manner and form of the work undertaken on the sewer system and the continued improper operation of the sewer system. (d) In failing to properly provide services that Plaintiffs have paid for to the City. 24. That as a result of Defendants’ breach, the Plaintiffs have suffered harm to property and consequential damages in an amount in excess of SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($75,000.00). WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, pray that this Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants and assess compensatory damages as associated with the negligence and acts creating a nuisance to Plaintiffs in violation of their statutory rights under the laws of Oklahoma, judgment for abatement, together with pre and post-judgment interest, costs, attorney’s fees, and such relief as this Court may deem equitable and appropriate. Respectfully submitted, Jim Buxton, OBA #19057 Spencer Habluetzel, OBA #32001 BUXTON LAW GROUP 511 Couch Drive, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 604-5577 – Telephone (405) 604-5578 – Facsimile [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiffs ATTORNEY’S LIEN CLAIMED JURY TRIAL DEMANDED