Performance Roofing Incorporated d/b/a A-Best Roofing v. Linda Fletcher a/k/a Linda Sue Fletcher, an individual
What's This Case About?
Let’s cut right to the chase: a roofing company is suing a woman for $6,000—half of what she agreed to pay—because she allegedly paid them twice… with checks that bounced. Yes, you read that right. She didn’t refuse to pay. She tried to pay. Twice. And both times, the money vanished like a magician’s assistant, only to reappear as a legal claim and a lien on her house. This isn’t just a debt dispute. This is financial slapstick.
Meet Linda Fletcher, a Tulsa homeowner living at 12402 E. 33rd Place, in a quiet corner of Briarglen East where the biggest drama is probably whether the HOA will fine someone for mismatched shutters. Linda, also known as Linda Sue Fletcher (and also, technically, Linda Sue Fletcher, Trustee of the Linda Sue Fletcher Revocable Trust Dated June 16, 2008—because why have one legal identity when you can have three?), decided her roof needed work. Enter A-Best Roofing, officially known as Performance Roofing Incorporated, a Tulsa-based contractor that, according to its contract, is licensed, bonded, and apparently very serious about getting paid. On February 13, 2025, Linda signed a contract for $11,999 worth of roofing services. The deal? Half up front, half within 15 days of completion. Standard stuff. No red flags—yet.
Now, here’s where things get weird. According to the invoice records, A-Best billed Linda $5,999.50 on February 21, 2025. Then, on March 6, a payment of exactly that amount was recorded. Case closed? Nope. Because on April 17, the same $5,999.50 reappears—this time labeled “Bounced Check #1091.” So the payment that cleared… didn’t. Then, on April 10, A-Best sends another invoice for the same amount. On May 16, another payment is recorded. And then—again—on May 21, the same sum comes back with the cheerful notation: “Bounced Check #1093.” At this point, we’re not dealing with forgetfulness. We’re dealing with a payment system that functions like a boomerang: money flies out, then smacks you in the face on the way back.
A-Best, now presumably suspicious of both Linda’s banking habits and the structural integrity of her checkbook, declares the contract breached. They claim they did the work—repaired the roof, did it right, did it in a “workmanlike fashion” (which, in roofing terms, probably means “didn’t leave shingles in the neighbor’s pool”). They sent the final invoice. They got paid. Twice. On paper. But the bank said, “Psych! Gotcha!” So now, they’re suing Linda for the $5,999.50 they say she still owes. And not just suing her personally—they’re going after the house. That’s right. They’ve slapped a mechanic’s lien on her property, meaning if this isn’t resolved, her home could be sold to pay the bill. And they’ve dragged Arvest Bank and the Tulsa County Treasurer into it too, because in Oklahoma, when you file a lien, you have to notify everyone who might have a financial interest in the property—mortgage holders, tax collectors, the whole neighborhood gossip chain.
So what’s the legal beef here? Two claims. First, breach of contract—a fancy way of saying “you promised to pay, you didn’t, so now we’re mad.” A-Best says they held up their end. Roof fixed. Job done. But Linda didn’t pay the final half. Second, lien foreclosure—which sounds like a bank repossessing a house, but in this case, it’s the roofer trying to force a sale of the property to get their money. Mechanic’s liens exist to protect contractors from getting stiffed after improving someone’s property. Without them, you could have a roofer replace your entire roof, only for you to sell the house the next day and pocket the increased value. So the law says: if you don’t pay, we’ll put a legal “hold” on your house until you do. It’s the construction world’s version of “You can’t leave until the check clears.”
Now, let’s talk about the money. $5,999.50. That’s not chump change, but it’s not life-ruining either—unless you’re already on shaky financial ground. For a full roof repair, it’s actually not an outrageous sum. But here’s the kicker: Linda did try to pay. Twice. So either she had a spectacularly bad week with her bank, or something deeper is going on—like a closed account, insufficient funds, or maybe even identity theft. Or maybe, just maybe, A-Best messed up the deposit. The filing doesn’t say. We don’t know if Linda disputes the work, the amount, or the bounced checks. All we know is what A-Best says: she owes us, we tried to collect, now we want the court to make her pay—and if she doesn’t, we want to sell the house to get our six grand.
And let’s pause for a second to appreciate the irony. A-Best’s own invoice warns: “All outstanding balances are subject to property liens.” So they threatened it. Then they did it. But the lien was filed on August 13, 2025—after both checks bounced, after the final notice, after the “PAST DUE” screaming from the invoice like a haunted fax machine. And the interest? A cool 21% per year. That’s not just high—it’s payday loan levels of interest. On a roofing bill. At that rate, in five years, the debt would nearly double. Is that legal? Maybe, if it’s in the contract. Is it reasonable? Not unless you think roofing should cost as much as a luxury sedan over time.
Here’s what’s absurd: this whole mess could’ve been avoided with a phone call. “Hey, Linda, your check bounced.” “Oh no, let me fix that.” “Actually, the second one bounced too.” “Oh. Huh.” Instead, we get a lawsuit, a lien, and a legal document that reads like a breakup letter from a very angry contractor. And poor Arvest Bank and the Tulsa County Treasurer are just sitting there, tagged in like bystanders in a TikTok fight: “You may have an interest in this property? Please show up.” They didn’t do anything. They’re just collateral damage in a war over a roof and two bad checks.
We’re rooting for clarity. We’re rooting for someone—anyone—to say, “Wait, let’s look at the bank records.” Because if Linda did try to pay, and the bank failed, is it fair to come after her like she committed roofing fraud? On the flip side, if she knowingly wrote checks she couldn’t cover, then A-Best deserves their money. But slapping a lien on a house over $6,000—especially when payment was attempted—feels like using a flamethrower to light a birthday candle. It works, but it’s gonna leave scars.
At the end of the day, this isn’t really about shingles or contracts or liens. It’s about trust. A-Best trusted Linda to pay. Linda trusted her bank to process the payment. The bank failed. And now, the legal system has to untangle who’s responsible. Will the court see this as a clear breach? Or as a case of financial miscommunication gone nuclear? Either way, one thing’s certain: the next time Linda Fletcher needs roof work, she’s probably calling someone other than A-Best. And honestly? We don’t blame her.
Case Overview
-
Performance Roofing Incorporated d/b/a A-Best Roofing
business
Rep: Tracy W. Robinett, OBA No. 13114, Caroline A. Lay, OBA No. 36176, ROBINETT, SWARTZ & DUREN
| # | Cause of Action | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Breach of Contract | Plaintiff alleges Defendant failed to pay balance due under contract for roofing services |
| 2 | Lien Foreclosure | Plaintiff alleges Defendant failed to pay for roofing services, resulting in lien on property |