CJ-2026-814 - Randy Michael Karnes and Melissa Karnes v. Edie Marie Karnes, John Doe, and Jane Doe

What's This Case About?

Let’s get the most explosive part out of the way first: a woman accused her stepfather of rape—and now, he and her mother are suing her for saying it. Yes, you read that right. Not the other way around. In what can only be described as a family feud gone full courtroom kaboom, a stepdad and mom are demanding $150,000 because their adult daughter allegedly smeared them by claiming the stepfather raped her while the mother stood by and did nothing. And now, the parents want her to pay them. Welcome to the legal circus, where the stakes are high, the emotions are higher, and the family therapy bills must be astronomical.

Meet the Karneses—a family with more drama than a prime-time soap opera and just as many plot twists. Randy Michael Karnes is the stepfather. Melissa Karnes is the mother and Randy’s wife. And Edie Marie Karnes? She’s the daughter, the natural child of Melissa and the stepchild of Randy. For nearly five years, from 2018 to early 2023, Randy and Melissa weren’t just parents—they were court-appointed co-guardians of Edie, which means a judge officially said, “Yes, these two are in charge of your well-being.” That’s not a small deal. It means Edie, for whatever reason, needed oversight—maybe due to health, disability, or personal struggles. But then, in January 2023, the guardianship ended. And shortly after? Boom. The gloves came off.

On June 9, 2023, Edie filed two separate petitions for protective orders in Wagoner County, Oklahoma. One against Randy. One against Melissa. And the allegations? Nuclear. In the petition against Randy, she listed “rape, DV, mentally abuse, stalking” as reasons she needed protection. In the one against her own mother, she claimed Melissa once said, “She should have pulled the plug on me when I was born.” Heavy stuff. Life-ruining stuff. Reputation-obliterating stuff. And according to the filing we’re looking at, none of it is true. At least, that’s what Randy and Melissa are saying. They claim Edie made it all up—out of malice, out of spite—and then published these lies not just to the court, but to Adult Protective Services and on social media. That’s the kind of accusation that doesn’t stay quiet. Once “rape” is typed into a legal document, it echoes. It follows you. It shows up in Google searches. It gets whispered at church. It can cost you your job, your friendships, your dignity.

So now, the parents aren’t just hurt. They’re furious. And they’re taking Edie—and two mystery figures, John and Jane Doe, whose identities are currently under seal or unknown—to court. Their argument? That Edie didn’t just make false claims—she weaponized them. By filing these protective orders and spreading the allegations online, she didn’t just accuse; she defamed. She put them in a “false light,” painting them as abusers and monsters in front of the public. And that, legally, is a big deal. Defamation isn’t just “you said something mean”—it’s “you said something false and damaging that ruined my life.” And when the lie is that you’re a rapist? That’s what lawyers call “defamation per se,” meaning the damage is so obvious, you don’t even have to prove it. The mere accusation is enough to justify a lawsuit.

But they’re not stopping there. They’re also suing for invasion of privacy, not because Edie peeked at their texts, but because she publicly portrayed them in a false and “highly offensive” way. Imagine being known in your community not as a hardworking couple who raised a daughter, but as the people who allegedly let a rape happen and joked about infanticide. That’s the “false light” they say Edie cast them in. And then there’s the emotional distress claim—because, let’s be real, being called a rapist and a neglectful mother by your own daughter? That’s the kind of thing that keeps you up at night, gives you panic attacks, maybe even costs you clients or job opportunities. They’re saying the emotional toll has been extreme, and they want compensation for it.

Now, let’s talk numbers. Randy and Melissa are asking for $150,000—split between $75,000 in actual damages and another $75,000 in punitive damages. Is that a lot for a defamation case? Well, in the grand scheme of civil lawsuits, it’s not crazy high—no billion-dollar TikTok dances here. But for a family dispute in Tulsa County? That’s serious money. The actual damages are meant to cover things like reputational harm, emotional suffering, and lost income. The punitive damages? That’s the “punishment” part—the court saying, “We don’t care if you can pay, you shouldn’t have done this.” And asking for both? That’s a message: “We’re not just hurt. We’re out for justice.”

Now, here’s the wild part: John and Jane Doe. Who are they? The petition doesn’t say. Are they friends of Edie’s who shared the posts? A therapist who reported the allegations to authorities? A nosy neighbor with a Facebook account? The filing suggests they helped spread the “defamatory” statements, but we don’t know how. And that’s where this case gets even murkier. Because if you’re going to sue someone for sharing a court document—something filed under oath with a judge—well, that’s a dangerous precedent. Courts are supposed to be safe spaces for people to speak, especially when seeking protection from abuse. If you can get sued for telling your story in a legal petition, even if it’s later proven false, that could chill real victims from coming forward. On the flip side, if someone does lie in court to destroy someone’s reputation? That’s a problem too. So this case isn’t just about one family—it’s about the balance between free speech, legal accountability, and the right to defend yourself—both in court and in public.

Our take? The most absurd thing here isn’t just the accusation or the countersuit—it’s the sheer escalation. A guardianship ends. A daughter feels wronged. She goes to court with serious claims. The parents don’t just deny it—they sue her for saying it. And now, instead of therapy or mediation, we’ve got a $150,000 legal battle with “rape” as the opening line. Where’s the off-ramp? Where’s the moment someone says, “Maybe we all need to sit down with a neutral third party and talk through this without lawyers?” Because at the end of the day, no amount of money can un-ring this bell. Even if Randy and Melissa win, the word “rape” is already out there. And if Edie was abused? Then this lawsuit could feel like a second violation. But if she lied*? Then the damage she caused is real, and the parents deserve their day in court.

We’re not rooting for blood. We’re rooting for clarity. For truth. For someone—anyone—to walk into that courtroom and say, “This is what actually happened.” Because right now, we’ve got a family tearing itself apart in public, with legal briefs as their weapons and social media as the battlefield. And the saddest part? No one wins when the only thing left standing is a pile of court documents and a family tree with all the branches burned off.

Case Overview

$150,000 Demand Jury Trial Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Stephen J. Modovsky

MODOVSKY LAW OFFICE

Relief Sought

$75,000 Monetary

$75,000 Punitive

Plaintiffs

Randy Michael Karnes and Melissa Karnes individual
Rep: Stephen J. Modovsky

Defendants

Edie Marie Karnes, John Doe, and Jane Doe individual

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	defamation	libelous, slanderous, and outrageous statements published and/or made by Defendants
2	invasion of privacy/false light	Defendants' portrayal of Plaintiffs in social media posts and other publications
3	intentional infliction of emotional distress	Defendants' extreme and outrageous actions causing emotional distress to Plaintiffs
4	defamation/libel per se	Defendants' negligent or malicious publication of false, defamatory statements about Plaintiffs
5	defamation/slander per se	Defendant John Doe's and Defendant Jane Doe's negligent or malicious publication of false, defamatory statements about Plaintiffs

Petition Text

1,658 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR TULSA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA RANDY MICHAEL KARNES and MELISSA KARNES, Plaintiffs, vs. EDIE MARIE KARNES, JOHN DOE, and JANE DOE, Defendants. PETITION COMES NOW the Plaintiffs, Randy Michael Karnes and Melissa Karnes, by and through their attorney, Stephen J. Modovsky, and for their claims against Defendants, Edie Marie Karnes, John Doe, and Jane Doe, allege and state, as follows: I. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT 1. That Randy Michael Karnes is the stepfather to Defendant Edie Karnes. That Plaintiff Melissa Karnes is Defendant Edie Karnes’ natural mother and Randy Michael Karnes’ spouse. 2. That by this action, the Plaintiffs seek to recover damages for, among other things, libelous, slanderous and outrageous statements published and/or made by Defendants. 3. That Defendant Edie Karnes filed maliciously false, misleading, defamatory, and outrageous information relating to the Plaintiffs, including but not limited to, maliciously slanderous statements that Randy Michael Karnes “raped” Defendant Edie Karnes while Plaintiff Melissa Karnes watched and did not report. II. PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. That Plaintiffs are residents of the City of Broken Arrow, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma. 5. That Defendant Eddie Marie Karnes, an individual, upon information and belief, is a resident of Wagoner County, Oklahoma. 6. That Defendant John Doe, an individual, upon information and belief, is a resident of Wagoner County, Oklahoma. 7. That Defendant Jane Doe, an individual, upon information and belief, is a resident of WagonerCounty, Oklahoma. 8. That the acts and omissions of Defendants, as more particularly described in the body of the Petition, occurred in Tulsa County. 9. That due to the acts and omissions of Defendants, the Plaintiffs have suffered irreparable professional, personal and economic harm and injury. III. BACKGROUND ALLEGATIONS (NOT AN EXHAUSTIVE LIST) 10. That Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate herein paragraphs 1 through 9 above and further and allege and state as follows: 11. That among other similar malicious and outrageous things, Defendant Edie Karnes has made public posts on social media, statements to Adult Protective Services and included statements in Protective Orders filed in Wagoner County (See attached, Petition for Protective Order PO-2023-245 and Petition for Protective Order PO-2023-246, respectively marked and numbered as Exhibits 1 and 2), making disparaging and false accusations against the Plaintiffs. 12. That Defendant Edie Karnes, with malice aforethought and reckless disregard, published, authored and/or made statements containing maliciously false, misleading, defamatory, and/or outrageous information against the Plaintiffs causing the Plaintiffs to defend themselves against her slanderous words (See attached, Motion to Dissolve Guardianship, Exhibit 3), which have devastated their professional and personal reputation and have devastated and injured their family, to-wit: PETITION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER PO-2023-246, filed June 09, 2023: a. DEFEFNDANT EDIE KARNES MAKES FALSE DEFAMATORY STATEMENT AND LISTS "RAPE, DV, MENTALLY ABUSE, STALKING" IN THE DESCRIPTION OF INCIDENTS SECTION OF HER PETITION AGAINST PLAINTIFF RANDY MICHAEL KARNES. TRUTH: Defendant Edie Karnes was not abused or raped by Plaintiff Randy Michael Karnes. PETITION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER PO-2023-245, filed June 09, 2023: b. DEFENDANT EDIE KARNES MAKES FALSE DEFAMATORY STATEMENT IN THE DESCRIPTION OF INCIDENTS SECTION OF HER PETITION AGAINST PLAINTIFF MELISSA KARNES “I THINK SHE KNEW ABOUT SOME OF THE ABUSE, SHE (MELISSA KARNES) SAID SHE SHOULD HAVE PULLED THE PLUG ON ME WHEN I WAS BORN”. TRUTH: Plaintiff Melissa Karnes made no such statements as reported in Defendant Edie Karnes Petition for Protective Order and Defendant Edie Karnes was not abused. That further, Plaintiffs were the court-appointed co-guardians of Defendant Edie Karnes from April 17, 2018 to January 31, 2023. That the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Dissolve the Guardianship IV. CAUSES OF ACTION A. DEFAMATION (AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS) 13. That paragraphs 1-12 are incorporated herein by reference. 14. That Defendants knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for their truth, made false and defamatory statements concerning the Plaintiffs. Such statements negatively affected and continue to affect Plaintiffs’ professional and personal reputations. 15. That these statements were made and published to numerous third parties. 16. That these statements were made negligently and with reckless disregard for the truth thereof and published to the general public. 17. That these statements had a direct and significant adverse reflection on the Plaintiffs professional and personal reputations. 18. That as a direct result of these actions by Defendants, Plaintiffs have suffered real and actual damages in excess of $75,000.00. B. INVASION OF PRIVACY/FALSE LIGHT (AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS) 19. That paragraphs 1-18 are incorporated herein by reference. 20. That Defendants’ portrayal of the Plaintiffs in their social media posts and other publications depict the Plaintiffs in a false light by making untrue statements about the Plaintiffs and their actions and character. 21. That Defendants’ portrayal of the Plaintiffs in their social media posts and other publications made the Plaintiffs appear before the public in an objectionable false light, otherwise than as they are. By Defendants’ actions, the Plaintiffs were given unreasonable and highly objectionable publicity that attributed to their characteristics, conduct or beliefs that are false, and so placed the Plaintiffs before the public in a false position. 22. That false light in which Defendants portrayed the Plaintiffs were highly offensive and would be considered highly offensive by any reasonable person. 23. That in publishing false statements about the Plaintiffs, Defendants knew such statements were false or acted with reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the Plaintiffs would be placed thereby. 24. That as a direct result of these actions by Defendants, Plaintiffs have suffered real and actual damages in excess of $75,000.00. C. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS) 25. That paragraphs 1-24 are incorporated herein by reference. 26. That Defendants’ actions in the setting in which they occurred were so extreme and outrageous as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and would be considered atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized society. 27. That Defendants intentionally and/or recklessly caused serve emotional distress to the Plaintiffs beyond that which a reasonable person could be expected to endure. 28. That as a result of these actions by Defendants, Plaintiffs have suffered real and actual damages in excess of $75,000.00. D. DEFAMATION/LIBEL PER SE (AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS) 29. That paragraphs 1-28 are incorporated herein by reference. 30. That the Defendants negligently or maliciously published false, defamatory statements of fact about the Plaintiffs. 31. That Plaintiffs have suffered substantial injury as a result of Defendants' defamatory statements, including but not limited to injury to character and reputation, mental anguish, loss of past and future income and loss of earning capacity. 32. That further, the Plaintiffs Randy Michael Karnes and Melissa Karnes, husband and wife, have suffered substantial injury as a result of Defendants' defamatory statements, including but not limited to, injury to character, reputation and mental anguish. E. DEFAMATION/SLANDER PER SE (DEFENDANT EDIE KARNES) 33. That paragraphs 1 through 32 are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 34. That Defendant John Doe negligently or maliciously made false, defamatory statements of fact about the Plaintiffs. 35. That Plaintiffs have suffered substantial injury as a result of Defendants' defamatory statements, including but not limited to injury to character and reputation, mental anguish, loss of past and future income and loss of earning capacity. F. DEFAMATION/SLANDER PER SE (DEFENDANT JOHN DOE) 36. That paragraphs 1 through 35 are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 37. That Defendant John Doe negligently or maliciously made false, defamatory statements of fact about the Plaintiffs. 38. That Plaintiffs have suffered substantial injury as a result of Defendants' defamatory statements, including but not limited to injury to character and reputation, mental anguish, loss of past and future income and loss of earning capacity. G. DEFAMATION - SLANDER PER SE (DEFENDANT JANE DOE) 39. That paragraphs 1 through 38 are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 40. That Defendant Jane Doe negligently or maliciously made false, defamatory statements of fact about the Plaintiffs. 41. That Plaintiffs have suffered substantial injury as a result of Defendants' defamatory statements, including but not limited to injury to character and reputation, mental anguish, loss of past and future income and loss of earning capacity. V. DAMAGES 42. That Plaintiffs respectfully request the following damages to be considered separately and individually and against all Defendants for the purpose of determining the sum of money that will fairly and reasonably compensate the Plaintiffs: a. The loss of professional and personal reputation and character Plaintiffs have suffered in the past and will continue to suffer in the future; b. The mental anguish Plaintiffs have suffered in the past and will continue to suffer in the future; and c. The loss of any earnings sustained by Plaintiffs in the past, and the loss or reduction of Plaintiffs earning capacity in the future. 43. That the aggregate amount of damages sought by Plaintiffs, at this time, will be $75,000.00. VI. PUNITIVE DAMAGES (AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS) 44. That paragraphs 1-43 are incorporated herein by reference. 45. That the intentional, wanton, and reckless conduct of the Defendants in disregard of Plaintiffs and others is and was, conducted with full knowledge, in that Defendants knew, or should have known, of the severe adverse consequences of their actions. That such actions and/or inactions were not only detrimental to the Plaintiffs, but the public in general. WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, Plaintiff prays that this Court grant the relief sought, including, but not limited to, actual damages in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), with interest accruing from date of filing of suit, punitive damages in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), reasonable attorney fees, and all other relief deemed appropriate by this Court. VII. JURY DEMAND 46. That Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury and will submit the appropriate fee prior to the Pretrial Conference. WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs prays for judgment against Defendants, with interest on the judgment at the legal rate, pre-judgment interest, costs of court and for such other further relief, both in law and equity, to which Plaintiff may show himself justly entitled. Respectfully submitted, By: ___________________________ STEPHEN J. MODOVSKY, OBA#18594 Attorney for the Plaintiffs MODOVSKY LAW OFFICE 1204 South Cheyenne Avenue Tulsa, OK 74119 OFF: 918-592-2677 FAX: 918-592-2377 EMAIL: [email protected] ATTORNEY LIEN CLAIMED UPON PAYMENT, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED