CRAZY CIVIL COURT ← Back
TULSA COUNTY • CJ-2026-1148

Sandman Construction, LLC, Frederick Arenas v. Triple T. Mini Storage, LLC, East 126th LLC d/b/a Triple T. Enterprises

Filed: Mar 12, 2026
Type: CJ

What's This Case About?

Let’s cut right to the chase: a construction company is trying to foreclose on an entire mini storage facility—yes, like, dozens of tiny lockable sheds full of other people’s junk—because it says it hasn’t been paid $85,348 for work it did. Not sued for the money. Not sent a mean email. It wants the courts to auction off the whole damn property. And not because someone forgot to mail a check, but because, allegedly, after doing tens of thousands of dollars’ worth of labor and delivering materials, the storage unit owners just… ghosted. This isn’t a dispute over a leaky faucet or a crooked deck—this is full-on real estate warfare over a patch of land in Collinsville, Oklahoma, where the stakes are high, the paperwork is dry, and the drama is deliciously petty.

On one side, we’ve got Sandman Construction, LLC—basically a contractor with a fancy name and a guy named Frederick Arenas, who seems to be the brains (or at least the legal face) behind the operation. He’s based in Rogers County, runs a construction gig, and apparently does enough work to drop $85k worth of labor and materials on a single project without blinking. On the other side? Triple T. Mini Storage, LLC, along with East 126th LLC, which does business as Triple T. Enterprises—the kind of naming convention that suggests someone really liked the letter “T” and also wanted to make sure no one could ever figure out who actually owns what. They operate a storage facility at 10005 E. 126th St. N. in Collinsville, which sounds like the kind of place where people stash their old couches, college textbooks, and maybe a broken lawnmower they swear they’ll fix “one of these days.” It’s not a skyscraper. It’s not a shopping mall. But it is real estate—and in the eyes of the law, that means it can be seized if someone’s got a valid claim. And Sandman says it does.

So how did we get here? According to the filing, back on January 27, 2025, Sandman and Triple T struck a deal—verbal, written, who knows? The petition doesn’t say, but it does say Sandman agreed to provide labor, materials, and equipment to improve the property. That could mean anything: new fencing, roofing, concrete pads, electrical upgrades, maybe even building out new storage units. What it doesn’t say is whether anyone thought this through. Did Triple T. Mini Storage run the numbers? Did they budget for $85k in construction costs? Or did they just say “sure, go ahead” and assume they’d figure out the payment part later—like ordering a $100,000 Tesla and then acting surprised when the bill comes?

Whatever the work was, Sandman claims it delivered. They showed up, did the job, and wrapped it up like pros. Then came the part that separates the responsible adults from the financial trainwrecks: they sent the invoice. Or, more accurately, they made “due demand” for payment. And according to the filing? Crickets. No check. No explanation. Just silence. Now, anyone who’s ever tried to collect on an unpaid bill knows that feeling—the slow burn of disbelief, then frustration, then rage as you realize you’ve been stiffed. But Sandman didn’t just grumble and write it off as a loss. Oh no. They went full legal beast mode.

On December 23, 2025—just days before Christmas, which is either cold-blooded or brilliantly timed—they filed a verified mechanics and materials lien with the Tulsa County Clerk. For non-lawyers (and let’s be honest, most lawyers too), a mechanics lien is like a financial booby trap. It basically says, “Hey, I did work on this property, I didn’t get paid, so now I get to claim a legal interest in the land itself until I do.” It’s not just a slap on the wrist—it’s a nuclear option that can freeze property sales, scare off buyers, and, in extreme cases, lead to foreclosure. And that’s exactly what Sandman wants now: to force the court to sell the entire mini storage property and use the proceeds to pay what they’re owed. They even filed under Instrument Number L2025013807, because nothing says “I mean business” like citing your county clerk’s database like it’s a Supreme Court precedent.

Now, here’s where it gets legally spicy. Sandman isn’t just suing for the money. They’re not asking for a judgment that says “Triple T owes Sandman $85,348.” They’re asking the court to sell the property—meaning if there are other loans or liens on the land (and the filing admits there probably are), the court has to sort out who gets paid first. It’s like a financial cage match where mortgages, tax liens, and contractor claims all duke it out for payout priority. And Sandman wants theirs to be near the top. They’re also asking for attorney’s fees, costs, interest, and “such other and further relief” the court deems “just and proper”—which is legalese for “throw in a free oil change if you’re feeling generous.”

And let’s talk about that number: $85,348. Is that a lot? For a mini storage facility in Collinsville? Maybe, maybe not. These kinds of properties can range from a few hundred thousand to millions, depending on size, location, and how many units they’ve got. If this is a 50-unit facility on a decent plot of land, $85k might be a big bite—but not a fatal one. But if Triple T. is barely breaking even, or if they’ve got other debts piling up, this could be the straw that collapses the whole storage shed. And remember: this isn’t just about Sandman. If the property goes to auction, everyone with a stake—banks, other contractors, tax collectors—has to line up and see what’s left after the dust settles. It’s not just a lawsuit. It’s a potential fire sale.

So what’s our take? Look, we’re not here to defend deadbeats. If Triple T. Mini Storage got a bunch of construction work done and just decided not to pay, that’s garbage. You don’t get free buildings. But come on—$85,000 and no payment plan? No negotiation? No “hey, we’re short this month, can we work something out?” And on the flip side, Sandman didn’t exactly try mediation or small claims court. They went straight for the foreclosure jugular. It’s like solving a parking ticket by declaring war.

The most absurd part? That we’re even talking about auctioning off a storage facility over this. Imagine the scene: bidders showing up, not for a mansion or a farm, but for a bunch of metal boxes full of strangers’ forgotten junk. The new owner shows up, unlocks Unit 17, and finds a broken treadmill, a stack of VHS tapes, and a framed photo of someone’s golden retriever. And somewhere in the office, a stack of unpaid invoices burns with quiet vengeance.

We’re rooting for resolution, not revenge. Pay the contractor. Settle the lien. Work it out before some judge turns a humble storage lot into a real estate bloodsport. Because at the end of the day, no one wins when a company has to foreclose on a mini storage unit just to get paid for doing its job. Except us. We win. Because this? This is entertainment.

Case Overview

$85,348 Demand Jury Trial Petition
Jurisdiction
District Court, Oklahoma
Relief Sought
$85,348 Monetary
Claims
# Cause of Action Description
1 Petition to Foreclose Mechanics and Materials Lien Plaintiff seeks to foreclose a mechanics and materials lien on a property in Tulsa County, Oklahoma.

Petition Text

635 words
IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR TULSA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA SANDMAN CONSTRUCTION, LLC, FREDERICK ARENAS Plaintiff, vs. TRIPLE T. MINI STORAGE, LLC, EAST 126th LLC d/b/a TRIPLE T. ENTERPRISES located at 10005 E. 126th St. N. Collinsville, Oklahoma TRIPLE T MINI STORAGE. Defendant. FILED DISTRICT COURT TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA March 12, 2026 2:40 PM DON NEWBERRY COURT CLERK Case Number CJ-2026-1148 Jury Trial Demanded PETITION TO FORECLOSE MECHANICS AND MATERIALS LIEN Comes now the Plaintiff herein and for cause of action against the Defendant alleges and states as follows: 1. The Plaintiff is resident of Rogers County, state of Oklahoma, and the Defendant is an LLC authorized to do business in the state of Oklahoma. The property which is the subject matter of this matter lies in Tulsa County, Oklahoma. 2. The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 O.S. 141 et seq. and venue is proper in this county. 3. On or about the 27th day of January, 2025 the parties entered into an agreement the Plaintiff was to furnish labor, materials and equipment on property located at 1005 E. 126th St. N., Collinsville, Oklahoma 74021 located in Tulsa County, Oklahoma and with the legal description of: Lot One (1), Block One (1), TRIPLE “T” ENTERPRISES, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, according to the recorded plat thereof. 4. The Plaintiff has fully performed all obligations under the agreement and the Defendant, although due demand has been made, refuses to pay said debt. 5. The total unpaid value of the labor and materials furnished was $85,348±. 6. The Defendants have failed and refused to pay that balance despite demand having been made. 7. On the 23rd day of December, 2025, the Plaintiff timely filed a verified statement of Lien with the Tulsa County Clerk in Tulsa County, Oklahoma, in compliance with all applicable statutes. 8. Said Lien was recorded in the records of the County Clerk in Tulsa County, Oklahoma as Instrument Number L2025013807. 9. Pursuant to 42 O.S. 176 the Plaintiff is entitled to foreclose the Lien and have the property sold to satisfy the debt. 10. The Plaintiff has informed and believes that there may be other liens, mortgages or other incumbrances of record against the subject property. The Plaintiff adds each such lien holder a party and Defendant herein so that their respective claims and interests may be determined by the Court. The Plaintiff reserves the right to add additional parties if necessary, concerning any lien holder that may exist claiming any interest in this property. Plaintiff requests that the Court adjudicate the priority of liens and incumbrances that may exist and that the Plaintiff’s lien be foreclosed subject to only those liens found to be superior to and having priority. 11. The Plaintiff further requests that the proceeds from any judicial sale be applied first to the cost of sale, then to liens in order of priority determined by the Court and thereafter to Plaintiff’s judgment. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendant as follows: 1. For the sum of $85,348.00 plus interest allowed by law; 2. For foreclosure of the Plaintiff’s Mechanics and Materials Lien; 3. For an Order directing the sale of the property to satisfy judgment; 4. For cost of this action including reasonable attorney’s fees; and 5. For such other and further relief that the Court deems just and proper. Respectfully Submitted, William R. Higgins WILLIAM R. HIGGINS, DBA #4187 HIGGINS LAW, P.C. P.O. Box 1267 Claremore, OK 74018 (918) 341-2131 Attorney for the Plaintiff Verification Attached: STATE OF OKLAHOMA ) COUNTY OF ROGERS ) ss. Frederick Arenas of lawful age, being first duly sworn upon oath, says: That he is the Petitioner above named; that he has read the foregoing and knows the contents thereof, and that the facts therein set forth are true and correct. Frederick Arenas Subscribed and sworn to before me this 11th day of March, 2026. (Seal) Rebecca Bressie Notary Public Commission Number: #15005803 My Commission Expires: EXP. JUNE 25, 2027
Disclaimer: This content is sourced from publicly available court records. Crazy Civil Court is an entertainment platform and does not provide legal advice. We are not lawyers. All information is presented as-is from public filings.