CJ-2026-1125 - Sandra Radcliffe Skarky v. Prevail Design Group LLC

What's This Case About?

Let’s cut right to the chase: Sandra Radcliffe Skarky paid a contractor to build a balcony. Instead, she got a faux balcony. And not the kind that looks so good you do a double take—no, the kind that makes you wonder if the whole project was just a fever dream. Oh, and the pool? Also a disaster. And the floor? Overcharged. And the contractor? Ghosted her harder than an ex after a bad first date. Welcome to what can only be described as Home Renovation: The Lawsuit.

Sandra Skarky is a homeowner in Oklahoma City, living on Tamarisk Drive in a neighborhood called “The Greens,” which sounds like a retirement community or a boutique salad chain, but in this case, it’s just a quiet street where someone really wanted a nice backyard overhaul. Enter Prevail Design Group LLC, a local contracting company run by Meghan Riley, who presumably promised the moon, stars, and at least one structurally sound balcony. On April 25, 2025—yes, this case was filed on the same day it allegedly began, which either means someone has incredible timing or the court system is now processing grievances in real time—Skarky signed a renovation contract with Prevail Design Group. The deal? A full construction job on her property, with a bid estimate ranging from $26,660 to $44,500. That’s not chump change, but for a full outdoor renovation—balcony, pool, flooring, the whole HGTV fantasy—it’s in the ballpark. Skarky handed over substantial payments, expecting a backyard paradise. What she got instead was a contractor’s greatest hits: overcharging, ghosting, and work so shoddy it had to be redone by someone else. And not just a little touch-up—redone. As in, “I paid twice for the same thing” redone.

According to the petition, things started going off the rails pretty quickly. First, the balcony. Skarky wanted a real, functional balcony—something with actual structural integrity, probably with railings, load-bearing supports, the whole deal. What she allegedly got was a “faux” balcony, which in construction terms usually means it’s decorative, not usable. Imagine spending thousands of dollars for something you can’t actually step onto. It’s like buying a car and getting a life-sized cardboard cutout instead. Then there’s the pool—another major feature in the renovation—which was apparently done so poorly it needed to be redone. Same with the flooring. And not only was the work subpar, but Prevail Design Group allegedly couldn’t even produce receipts or invoices for the materials used. Which raises the question: Did they actually buy the materials, or just charge her for them? We don’t know. Because they never provided documentation. At all.

By summer 2025, Skarky had had enough. She sent a list of deficiencies—unfinished work, poor craftsmanship, incorrect billing—and requested an accounting. You know, like, “Hey, where did my $40K go?” And Meghan Riley, allegedly, agreed to provide it. Then… radio silence. Crickets. No accounting. No explanation. Just silence. Skarky’s attorney, Aimee Majoue (who, side note, filed this petition with the precision of someone who’s seen this movie before), sent a formal demand on September 5, 2025. Still nothing. Follow-up calls? Texts? More silence. Then, on October 3, Riley allegedly promised over text to send everything. Didn’t happen. Then, on October 13, Riley dropped the classic legal dodge: “I’ve retained counsel.” Which, fair enough—everyone’s entitled to a lawyer. But here’s the kicker: no attorney ever contacted Skarky’s lawyer. Not a call. Not an email. Not even a “We’re handling it, please stand by” note. Just… nothing. At that point, Skarky didn’t have a renovation project. She had a legal case.

So why are we in court? Because this isn’t just about bad vibes or aesthetic disappointment. Skarky is suing for breach of contract—which, in plain English, means: “You promised to do X, you got paid for X, but you either didn’t do X or did it so badly it might as well not exist.” The contract outlined specific work to be done within a defined budget. Skarky paid her part. Prevail Design Group, allegedly, failed on multiple fronts: they went over budget on key items (balcony, pool, flooring), didn’t finish the work, did it poorly, and refused to show where the money went. That’s not just bad customer service—that’s a legal violation. And when a contractor takes money and doesn’t deliver the agreed-upon service, especially when the homeowner has to pay someone else to fix it, that’s when lawsuits happen. This isn’t about nitpicking grout lines. This is about paying for a balcony and getting a stage prop.

Skarky is asking for at least $75,000 in damages. Now, is that a lot? Well, let’s do the math. The original contract capped at $44,500. She’s now claiming more than $75,000 in damages—which suggests she’s not just asking for her money back, but for the cost of hiring another crew to fix or redo the work, plus legal fees, time, stress, and the general emotional toll of living in a half-finished renovation nightmare. If she had to pay another contractor $40K to finish what Prevail Design started, plus legal costs and lost value in her property, $75K starts to look less like an overreach and more like a conservative estimate. And remember: she’s not asking for punitive damages, which would be extra punishment for bad behavior. She’s just asking to be made whole. Which, in a just world, is all anyone should want after being taken to the cleaners.

Here’s the thing we’re chewing on: the faux balcony. That detail is just too rich. It’s not just a metaphor for broken promises—it’s the literal centerpiece of this disaster. A faux balcony is for people who want the look of luxury without the substance. And isn’t that exactly what this whole renovation feels like? All show, no function. Overpriced, underdelivered, and ultimately, unusable. And the ghosting? The broken promises? The “I’ve retained counsel” bluff that led nowhere? It’s not just unprofessional—it’s the kind of behavior that makes people hate contractors, lawyers, and possibly home ownership in general. We’re not saying Meghan Riley should be banned from building anything more complicated than a LEGO set. But if you’re going to run a design group, maybe don’t treat client funds like a mystery box. And if you’re going to promise a balcony, maybe make sure it’s one you can actually walk out onto.

Look, home renovations are stressful. They’re emotional. People invest not just money but dreams into these projects. And when a contractor takes that trust and turns it into a half-finished pool and a decorative balcony that mocks you every time you look at it, that’s not just a breach of contract—that’s a betrayal of the suburban dream. So while $75,000 might sound like a lot, we’re rooting for Skarky. Not because she wants a big payout, but because she wants accountability. And maybe, just maybe, a real balcony. One where she can finally sip her morning coffee—on something that won’t collapse under the weight of a potted plant.

Case Overview

$75,000 Demand Jury Trial Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Aimee Majoue

Majoue Legal Services LLC

Relief Sought

$75,000 Monetary

Plaintiffs

Sandra Radcliffe Skarky individual
Rep: Aimee Majoue, OBA #33563

Defendants

Prevail Design Group LLC business
Meghan Riley individual

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Breach of Contract	Plaintiff alleges Defendants breached their contract by failing to complete the scope of work outlined in the agreement, performing faulty workmanship, and overcharging Plaintiff for the work that was performed.

Petition Text

971 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA SANDRA RADCLIFFE SKARKY, Plaintiff, v. PREVAIL DESIGN GROUP LLC, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company; and MEGHAN RILEY, an individual, Defendants. PETITION Plaintiff, Sandra Radcliffe Skarky ("Ms. Skarky" or "Plaintiff"), for her claims and causes of action against Defendants, Prevail Design Group LLC ("Prevail Design Group") and Meghan Riley ("Ms. Riley") (collectively "Defendants"), allege and state as follows: PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE 1. Plaintiff is an individual residing in Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma. 2. Defendant Prevail Design Group LLC is a limited liability company operating under the laws of the State of Oklahoma with its principal place of business in Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma, and it can be served at 1708 N. Broadway Avenue, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73103. 3. Defendant Meghan Riley is an individual residing, upon information and belief, in Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma. 4. The real property subject to this action is located in Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma, at 4719 Tamarisk Drive, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73142. 5. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2004(F). 6. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 12 O.S. §§ 131 and 134. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 7. Plaintiff owns real property at 4719 Tamarisk Drive, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73142 and described as follows: the Greens, Section 7, Block 36, Lot 29 (the "Subject Property"). 8. On or about April 25, 2025, Plaintiff contracted with Defendants for construction to be done on and to the Subject Property. 9. The Contractor-Client Renovation Agreement ("Agreement") executed by the parties explicitly outlines the scope of work to be performed at the Subject Property and incorporated a Construction Bid Estimate with a lower end estimate of $26,660.00 and an upper end estimate of $44,500.00. 10. Defendants charged more than agreed on several items including, but not limited to, the balcony work, the pool, and the floor. 11. Defendants failed to provide receipts and invoices for several items. 12. Defendants’ work was incomplete or completed with poor workmanship requiring Plaintiff to pay a second time to another company for much of Defendants’ work to be redone properly and up to code. Much of the work Defendants agreed to perform is still incomplete. 13. Sometime in the summer of 2025, Defendants were provided a list of deficiencies in the work performed, incomplete work, and inaccurate charges as well as a request for an accounting from Defendants to resolve the issues informally. 14. Although Defendants agreed to provide an accounting, no accounting has been provided as of the date of filing this Petition. 15. On or about September 5, 2025, undersigned counsel send a formal demand for the accounting and request to engage in an alternative dispute resolution for the Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants. 16. After no response, undersigned counsel followed up with Defendants by telephone and then by text message through Prevail Design Group’s listed phone number. Ms. Riley responded and stated she would provide the requested information by October 3, 2025. No information was provided. 17. Although undersigned counsel further attempted to work with Ms. Riley to receive the information requested with further broken promises of providing the information, Ms. Riley informed undersigned counsel on October 13, 2025, that she had retained counsel and her attorney has the documents and would be contacting undersigned counsel. 18. No such contact was ever received. With no resolution or communication, Plaintiff was forced to seek the assistance of the Court. CLAIM 1 – BREACH OF CONTRACT 19. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 18 above. 20. Plaintiff contracted with Defendants for specific construction work to be performed at the Subject Property memorialized by the Contractor-Client Renovation Agreement ("Agreement"). 21. The Agreement executed by the parties incorporates a Construction Bid Estimate with a lower end estimate of $26,660.00 and an upper end estimate of $44,500.00. 22. Plaintiff made substantial payments to Defendants for the work to be performed under the Agreement. 23. The work completed by Defendants was not only incomplete but also deficient requiring Plaintiff to pay additional monies to another company to complete the work and correct Defendants errors. 24. Defendants overcharged Plaintiff for the work that was performed. 25. Defendants breached their contract with Plaintiff by failing to complete the scope of work outlined in the Agreement and through the faulty workmanship of the work that was performed. 26. Defendants’ breach caused damages to Plaintiff by delaying the construction of the Subject Property and increasing Plaintiff’s expenses through work that had to be completed and/or redone. 27. As a result of Defendants’ breach, Plaintiff is entitled to her actual damages in an amount to be determined at trial. 28. In addition, as a result of Defendants’ breach, Plaintiff is entitled to her incidental and consequential damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but equal to at least the amount incurred plus the amount to properly complete or repair the work that Plaintiff contracted Defendants to complete. 29. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff requests that a money judgment be entered on her behalf against Defendants in an amount to be determined at trial, together with all consequential and incidental damages, the costs of suit, Plaintiff’s reasonable attorney’s fees, interest, and for such other and further relief as the Court determines is just and equitable under the facts and circumstances of this case pursuant to 12 O.S. § 936 and 15 O.S. 266 & 275. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court enter judgment in her favor and against Defendants as follows: A. Finding that Defendants breached their contract with Plaintiff; B. Finding that Plaintiff is entitled to damages to be determined at trial in an amount in excess of $75,000.00; C. Finding that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of her attorneys' fees, costs of litigation, interest, and all other damages pursuant to 12 O.S. § 940, 16 O.S. § 79(A), and allowed by law; D. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable under the facts and circumstances. Respectfully submitted, [Signature] Aimee Majoue, OBA #33563 Majoue Legal Services LLC 12220 N. Macarthur Blvd, Ste F #765 Oklahoma City, OK 73162 Telephone: (405)437-4633 [email protected] ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF