CJ-2026-00090 - Skye E. Peterson v. Luke O. Peterson

What's This Case About?

Let’s cut right to the chase: a father is being sued by his own daughter for allegedly stealing nearly $40,000 from her college fund — money that was supposed to pay for textbooks, dorm fees, and late-night ramen, not whatever Luke O. Peterson decided to spend it on. We don’t know if he blew it on a hot tub, a dirt bike, or an impressively niche collection of vintage lawn gnomes, but we do know this: Skye E. Peterson is now stuck taking out student loans because the man who helped bring her into this world may have just made it a whole lot harder for her to get out of it — at least financially.

Skye and Luke Peterson are, as the court documents so delicately put it, father and daughter. They also happen to be the two main characters in what could be the most emotionally awkward family drama since someone forgot to invite Aunt Karen to Thanksgiving again. But this isn’t about seating arrangements or passive-aggressive comments over mashed potatoes — this is about cold, hard cash that was supposed to go toward Skye’s future. Back when Skye was still dreaming of dorm rooms and campus quads, her parents — Luke and Laura E. Peterson — set up an Oklahoma 529 College Savings Plan. For the uninitiated, a 529 plan is basically a magical tax-advantaged savings account where parents (and sometimes grandparents, distant uncles with questionable motives, etc.) stash money specifically for college. It’s not supposed to be raided for vacations, car repairs, or impulsive online purchases at 2 a.m. It’s for education. And according to Skye, that’s exactly where things went off the rails.

The backstory starts in a divorce courtroom — FD-2020-49, to be precise — where Luke and Laura called it quits. As part of the divorce decree, the court made it crystal clear: Luke was to remove himself from ownership of Skye’s 529 account by August 31, 2023. This wasn’t a suggestion. It wasn’t a “maybe think about it.” It was a court order. And yet, somehow, Luke allegedly didn’t do it. Instead, he reportedly stayed on as owner, kept control of the account, and — here’s the real kicker — closed it and took all the money. The balance in September 2021 was $31,430.69. With six percent annual interest — the kind of modest but steady growth you’d expect from a boring, responsible investment — that should’ve grown to $39,680.52 by September 2025. That’s the number Skye’s lawyers are now chasing. And she wasn’t even asking for it until she actually needed it — like any responsible adult child trying to navigate the soul-crushing economics of higher education. She started college in August 2025. Smart move. She reached out. She asked for the funds. And Luke allegedly told her, “Sorry, kiddo — the money’s gone. Account’s closed.” Which, if true, is about as comforting as being told your birthday cake got eaten by a raccoon.

Now, Skye isn’t just mad. She’s lawyered up and swinging — with three legal claims that sound like they were pulled from a law school exam written by someone with a grudge against deadbeat parents. First up: Unjust Enrichment. Fancy term, simple idea — you can’t keep something that isn’t yours, especially if it screws over someone else. The argument here is that Luke benefited (financially) from Skye’s college fund, even though he had no right to it after the divorce order, and keeping it would be fundamentally unfair. Second: Fraud. Not just “oops I messed up,” but “you lied and deceived me.” Skye claims Luke actively misled her — saying the money no longer exists while she discovered he’d closed the account himself. That’s not poor financial management. That’s deliberate deception. Third: Breach of Fiduciary Duty — and this one’s the emotional gut punch. A fiduciary duty means you’re supposed to act in someone else’s best interest, especially when trust is involved. Parents often have this duty toward their kids, particularly when managing their money. By allegedly using the funds for his own personal expenses instead of Skye’s tuition, Luke didn’t just break a rule — he violated a sacred parental contract. He wasn’t just a bad investor. He was a bad dad, at least in the eyes of the law.

So what does Skye want? $39,680.52. Plus 6% annual interest. Plus attorney’s fees. Is that a lot? Well, let’s put it this way: that’s enough to cover a full year at most public universities in Oklahoma, or a solid chunk of a private one. It’s not a Lamborghini, but it’s also not a “oops I forgot my wallet at Applebee’s” kind of sum. For a college student, it’s life-changing. It’s the difference between graduating with a manageable amount of debt and being buried under it for the next decade. It’s the difference between studying abroad and working a third job at the campus library just to eat. And sure, maybe Luke had his reasons — maybe he was struggling, maybe he thought he’d pay it back, maybe he genuinely believed he still had a right to the money. But none of that changes the fact that a court told him to step away, and he didn’t. And now his daughter is suing him to get back what was promised.

Here’s the thing we can’t stop thinking about: the sheer audacity of raiding a college fund. Not a joint checking account. Not a retirement nest egg. A college savings plan. This wasn’t just money — it was hope. It was security. It was a promise whispered at bedtime when Skye was little: “Don’t worry, we’ve got your future covered.” And now? She’s the one covering it — with loans, with stress, with a lawsuit against her own father. The most absurd part isn’t even the theft. It’s the betrayal wrapped in paperwork. It’s the fact that Skye had to grow up enough to go to college, but also grow up enough to sue her dad to afford it. We’re not rooting for bloodshed. We’re not demanding Luke be paraded through Tuttle in a dunce cap. But we are rooting for accountability. For the idea that promises — especially the ones written into court orders and tied to a child’s future — should mean something. And if Luke did blow that money on something dumb? May it at least have been a really, really good dirt bike. Because otherwise, this whole mess is just tragic. And kind of pathetic. And honestly? A little too real for comfort.

We’re entertainers, not lawyers. But even we know this one doesn’t need a verdict to feel like a loss.

Case Overview

$39,681 Demand Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Anna K. Van Dyck

Van Dyck Law Office, PLLC

Relief Sought

$39,681 Monetary

Plaintiffs

Skye E. Peterson individual
Rep: Anna K. Van Dyck

Defendants

Luke O. Peterson individual

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Unjust Enrichment	Plaintiff alleges Defendant unjustly received a benefit from Plaintiff's Oklahoma 529 College Savings Plan Account.
2	Fraud	Plaintiff alleges Defendant fraudulently retained funds from Plaintiff's Oklahoma 529 College Savings Plan Account.
3	Breach of Fiduciary Duty	Plaintiff alleges Defendant breached fiduciary duty by misappropriating funds from Plaintiff's Oklahoma 529 College Savings Plan Account.

Petition Text

1,164 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF GRADY COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA SKYE E. PETERSON, Plaintiff, -v.- LUKE O. PETERSON, Defendant. No. CJ-2026-90 PETITION COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Skye E. Peterson, and for cause of action against the Defendant alleges and states as follows: 1. The Plaintiff is an individual resident of the State of Oklahoma, Grady County, Tuttle, Oklahoma. 2. That the Defendant is an individual resident of the State of Oklahoma, McClain County, Newcastle, Oklahoma. 3. That all facts surrounding the issues to be addressed by this Court first occurred and have been previously litigated in a divorce action in Grady County, State of Oklahoma, and therefore this Court has jurisdiction of this action under 12 Okla. Stat. § 142. COUNT I UNJUST ENRICHMENT COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Skye E. Peterson, and for her first cause of action against the Defendant, Luke O. Peterson, and herein alleges and states as follows: 4. That Defendant, Luke O. Peterson, has unjustly received a benefit provided by Plaintiff’s Oklahoma 529 College Savings Plan Account, 5. That the benefit was fraudulently retained by Defendant in violation of the Decree of Dissolution in Grady County case no. FD-2020-49, and the Defendant has misappropriated all funds for his personal use. 6. That the Plaintiff has attained the age of majority, and has also began attending college in August 2025. 7. That the Plaintiff demanded the funds be provided for her college expenses, and the Defendant has refused to turn over the funds stating that they no longer exist, and the account has been closed. 8. That under the circumstances it would be unjust for the Defendant to retain the benefit provided by the Plaintiff without commensurate compensation, as Plaintiff would suffer monetary loss, and undue expense due to the actions of the Defendant. 9. That the amount of the Oklahoma 529 College Savings Plan in September 2021 was reported to be $31,430.69, and said amount would increase at a rate of 6% annual interest, thus, the amount retained unjustly by the Defendant and withheld from the Plaintiff is $39,680.52 as of September 2025. WEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment in the amount of $39, 680.52 plus 6% annual interest until said amount is paid in full by the Defendant, over and against the Defendant, and for such other and further relief to which Plaintiff may be entitled to receive. COUNT II FRAUD COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Skye E. Peterson, and for her second cause of action against Defendant, Luke O. Peterson, herein realleges and restates all of those matters set forth in Plaintiff's Count I and further alleges and states as follows: 1. That the Plaintiff was entitled to receive funds from an Oklahoma 529 College Savings Plan for educational purposes. 2. That the Defendant was ordered in Grady County case no. FD-2020-49 to remove himself from ownership of the Oklahoma 529 account by August 31st, 2023. 3. That the Defendant failed to remove himself from said account and has retained all funds and refused to provide said funds to Plaintiff for her use in payment for her college education. 4. That the Defendant failed to provide the funds to Plaintiff upon request, and has stated that the funds no longer exist. 5. That the Plaintiff has been able to determine that the Oklahoma 529 account was closed by the Defendant in her attempts to gain access to the funds for payment of her college education. 6. That Defendant has utilized the funds held in said account in violation of the court in the divorce matter, and in violation of the accounts purpose without the permission of the Plaintiff. 7. That the Defendant has acted in deceit by failing to pay the Plaintiff funds for her education of which she was entitled to receive. 8. That the Plaintiff has been damaged in the amount of $39, 680.52, plus 6% annual interest to be calculated September of each and every year, by Defendant. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant for damages in the amount of $39, 680.52, together with interest thereon at an annual rate of 6% interest per year, to be calculated in September of each and every year until paid in full; together with all costs of this action accrued and accruing, reasonable attorney’s fees as found by the Court, together with such other relief which the Plaintiff may be entitled. COUNT III BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Skye E. Peterson, and for her third cause of action against Defendant, Luke O. Peterson, herein realleges and restates all of those matters set forth in Plaintiff’s Count I and further alleges and states as follows: 1. That the Plaintiff is the daughter of the Defendant. 2. That the Defendant and the Plaintiff’s mother, Laura E. Peterson, established an Oklahoma 529 College Savings Plan account for the Plaintiff. 3. That the Defendant being the father of the Plaintiff is a person of which the Plaintiff had trust, confidence and reliance on to properly care and perform as necessary to protect said funds held in the Oklahoma 529 account. 4. That the Defendant had been ordered to remove himself from the account in FD-2020-49 Grady County, in the Decree of Dissolution between he and Laura Peterson. 5. That it was determined that the Defendant failed to remove himself from ownership of the account, and has closed said account, removed all funds, and has failed to provide any funds to the Plaintiff for her college education. 6. That the Defendant had a duty to not only remove himself under the divorce order, but to act in the best interest of the Plaintiff. 7. That the Defendant instead of acting in the best interest of the Plaintiff, misappropriated all funds held in the account and has failed to disclose the location of any of the said funds. 8. That the Defendant has participated in self-dealing having removed said funds from the account, and having used funds for his personal use. 9. That the Plaintiff has suffered damages in her having the take loans for her college education which began August 2025. 10. That but for the actions of the Defendant, the Plaintiff would have suffered no harm and her college education would have been paid-in-full with limited to no cost due by her for the payment for said education. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant for damages in the amount of $39,680.52, together with interest thereon at an annual rate of 6% interest per year, to be calculated in September of each and every year until paid in full; together with all costs of this action accrued and accruing, reasonable attorney’s fees as found by the Court, together with such other relief which the Plaintiff may be entitled. Respectfully submitted. ANNA K. VAN DYCK, OBA #35015 VAN DYCK LAW OFFICE, PLLC P.O. Box 909 Chickasha, OK 73023 Telephone: (572) 236-3100 (572) 236-3101-Assistant Attorney for Plaintiff STATE OF OKLAHOMA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF GRADY ) Skye E. Peterson, of lawful age, being first duly sworn states: That she is the Plaintiff aforementioned; that she has read the above and foregoing Petition, is familiar with the contents thereof and the matters and things therein stated are true. Skye Peterson SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 10th day of March, 2026. (SEAL) My Commission Expires: 01/09/2027