Brady White v. Duit Construction Co., Inc.
What's This Case About?
Let’s get one thing straight: this is not a lawsuit about dirt. Oh no. This is a drama about dirt — the kind of dirt that changes landscapes, kills cattle, and allegedly leaves behind a construction site that looks less like a future residential paradise and more like a post-apocalyptic concrete jungle with rebar teeth. Brady White, a landowner in Cotton County, Oklahoma, is suing Duit Construction Co., Inc. not just for taking too much dirt — but for allegedly turning his property into a bovine death trap and then billing the state for the privilege.
So who are we even talking about here? On one side, you’ve got Brady White — a private landowner with roughly five acres that, until recently, was just regular Oklahoma farmland. Nothing flashy, nothing cursed. On the other side: Duit Construction Co., Inc., a full-blown Oklahoma corporation that landed a nearly $17 million contract with the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority to build some stretch of road nobody’s ever heard of (Project HEB-MC-67B, if you’re into bureaucratic poetry). These guys don’t play small — they’ve got project managers, assistant project managers, and apparently, a serious appetite for cubic yards.
Back in August 2022, they made a deal. White would let Duit use his land as a temporary construction site — a “borrow and waste” area, which sounds like a bad indie band but is actually construction jargon for “you can dig here and dump your junk here.” In exchange, Duit would pay him 40 cents per cubic yard of dirt they took — up to 10,000 cubic yards. That’s about $4,000, give or take. Not life-changing money, but hey, free cash for letting trucks rumble across your pasture for a few months. Oh, and there was a bonus: Duit promised to leave the land in a “neat and orderly condition,” build a functional dam out of waste concrete (as shown on Exhibit B — yes, there’s a diagram), and create a pond suitable for future residential development and cattle grazing. White, possibly imagining a serene little lake for his future McMansion compound, signed on the dotted line.
Then… things got wild.
According to White’s petition, Duit didn’t just take 10,000 cubic yards of dirt. They took 72,500. That’s over seven times the agreed amount. And they didn’t dig in the little square marked on the map. Nope. They went rogue, excavating from an entirely different area, reshaping the entire topography like they were sculpting a modern art installation titled “Oops, All Liability.” The landscape, White claims, has been “dramatically” altered — which, when you’re a farmer, is less “art” and more “existential nightmare.”
But it gets worse. Remember that dam they were supposed to build? The one that was supposed to be safe for livestock and future homeowners? Instead of a stable, functional structure, White says Duit left behind a Frankenstein’s monster of jagged concrete chunks with rebar sticking out like metal daggers — the kind of thing that would make a cow say, “Hard pass.” And tragically, at least six of White’s cattle — including three pregnant heifers — were injured or killed after coming into contact with the debris. Let that sink in: pregnant cows died because of poorly dumped construction waste. That’s not just negligence — that’s a country song waiting to happen.
Oh, and Duit didn’t even put the junk where White told them to. The agreement clearly states the waste area had to be at the owner’s direction. Instead, they dumped it wherever they felt like it, forcing White to pay to haul away 60 truckloads of illegal debris himself. Meanwhile, Duit reportedly got paid over $1.6 million by the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority for work done on or related to White’s property — including, presumably, for all that extra dirt they took without permission.
So why are we in court? Legally speaking, White is making two big claims. First: breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Translation: “You broke the deal, took way more than you were allowed, didn’t clean up, and now you’re richer while I’m stuck with a wasteland and dead livestock.” He’s demanding either fair market value for the 62,500 extra cubic yards of dirt (which he estimates at $75,930 total) or at least the original 40-cent rate for the excess — plus cleanup costs. Second: negligence. Basically, “you left dangerous conditions on my land, ignored safety, and caused real harm.” The pond doesn’t work. The dam is a hazard. The land is unusable for development or grazing. And someone — namely Duit — should pay for that.
Now, let’s talk numbers. White is asking for over $75,000 in damages — and yes, that’s a lot of money to most of us. But when you consider Duit allegedly got over a million from the state for work on this exact site, and they only paid White about $10,800 (which already covers more dirt than was agreed upon), $75K starts to look less like a windfall and more like basic accountability. He’s also asking for injunctive relief — meaning he wants the court to force Duit to actually fix the dam and pond the way they were supposed to in the first place. No half-assed concrete graveyard. No more rebar landmines. Just… do the damn job right.
And honestly? This case is a goldmine of petty civil court absurdity. It’s got everything: a land deal gone wrong, a construction company gone rogue, dead pregnant cows, and a dam that looks like it was built by a sleep-deprived intern. The most absurd part? Duit allegedly got paid by the state for work that, according to White, was never completed properly — and now the guy whose land they trashed is the one footing the cleanup bill. It’s like if a plumber came to fix your sink, flooded your entire house, stole your towels, and then got a five-star review from your landlord.
Are we rooting for Brady White? Absolutely. Not because he’s some innocent saint — he did sign a contract that allowed “approximate” dirt removal, which Duit could try to exploit — but because the scale of the alleged overreach is cartoonish. Seven times the dirt? Dead livestock? A dam made of jagged death? And they didn’t even ask where to dump the trash? Come on. If you’re going to dig up someone’s land and promise them a pond, at least deliver a pond — not a liability lawsuit with a side of bovine tragedy.
This isn’t just about dirt. It’s about trust, contracts, and the fact that when big construction companies roll into small towns, sometimes they treat local landowners like afterthoughts. Well, Brady White is saying: “Not so fast.” And if the court agrees, Duit Construction might just learn that in Cotton County, you don’t mess with a man’s dirt — or his cows.
Case Overview
-
Brady White
individual
Rep: Kelsey B. Kephart, Kayla D. Dupler of Kephart Law, PLLC, and Kelli J. Goodnight, of Goodnight Law, PLLC
- Duit Construction Co., Inc. business
| # | Cause of Action | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Breach of Contract & Unjust Enrichment | Plaintiff alleges Defendant breached their contract and was unjustly enriched by removing more dirt than agreed upon and not leaving the property in a neat and orderly condition. |
| 2 | Negligence | Plaintiff alleges Defendant was negligent in maintaining hazardous conditions on the property and constructing a dam that was not suitable for use. |