IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CANADIAN COUNTY
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
LAWANDA ILENE GORE,
) )
) )
Plaintiff, )
) )
v. )
) ) Case No. CJ-2026-377
CITY OF EL RENO, a municipal
Corporation; )
) )
Defendant. )
PAUL HESSE
PETITION AND REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
COMES NOW Lawanda Ilene Gore (hereinafter "Plaintiff"), by and through her counsel of record, and pursuant to OKLA. STAT. tit. 12, § 1381 et seq., OKLA. STAT. tit. 12, § 1651 et seq., OKLA. STAT. tit. 12. § 1384.1 et seq., and Rule 13 of the Rules of the Seventh and Twenty-sixth Judicial Administrative Districts, and for her causes of action against the City of El Reno, Oklahoma, a municipal corporation, alleges and states:
PARTIES AND VENUE
1. Plaintiff owns various properties situated in El Reno, Canadian County, Oklahoma.
2. The properties at issue in this matter are located at:
a. 1008 W Hayes Street, El Reno, Oklahoma 73036
b. 308 S Foster Avenue, El Reno, Oklahoma 73036
c. 318 S Foster Avenue, El Reno, Oklahoma 73036
d. 1001 W Woodson Street, El Reno, Oklahoma 73036
3. Defendant, City of El Reno (hereinafter "Defendant"), is a municipal corporation located in Canadian County, organized under the laws of the State of Oklahoma, which may be served in accordance with Oklahoma law by and through the City of El Reno City Clerk
located at 101 N. Choctaw Avenue, El Reno, Oklahoma 73036.
4. Jurisdiction and venue are proper with this Court.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
5. The property located at 1008 W Hayes Street, El Reno, Oklahoma 73036 (hereinafter "Hayes Property") was determined by the Assistant City Manager of the City of El Reno, Tim Young, an agent and employee of Defendant, to be a dilapidated structure. Plaintiff appealed this decision to the City Council of El Reno, a body of agents and employees of Defendant, which affirmed its fellow agent/employee's determination of a dilapidated structure on at the City Council meeting held on March 10, 2026.
6. The Hayes Property is not a dilapidated structure pursuant to OKLA. STAT. tit. 12, § 22-112. Plaintiff requests this Court review the determination of a dilapidated structure by Defendant and judicially determine if the Hayes Property is a dilapidated structure.
7. The property located at 308 S Foster Avenue, El Reno, Oklahoma 73036 (hereinafter "308 Foster Property) was determined by the Assistant City Manager of the City of El Reno, Tim Young, an agent and employee of Defendant, to be a dilapidated structure. Plaintiff appealed this decision to the City Council of El Reno, a body of agents and employees of Defendant, which affirmed its fellow agent/employee's determination of a dilapidated structure. Without giving Plaintiff an opportunity to demolish the structure herself as required by the International Property Maintenance Code § 111.1 et seq., Defendant proceeded to demolish the structure located on the 308 Foster Property.
8. The property located at 318 S Foster Avenue, El Reno, Oklahoma 73036 (hereinafter "318 Foster Property) was determined by the Assistant City Manager of the City of El Reno, Tim Young, an agent and employee of Defendant, to be a dilapidated structure. Plaintiff
appealed this decision to the City Council of El Reno, a body of agents and employees of Defendant, which affirmed its fellow agent/employee’s determination of a dilapidated structure. Without giving Plaintiff an opportunity to demolish the structure herself as required by IPMC § 111.1 et seq., Defendant proceeded to demolish the structure located on the 318 Foster Property
9. The property located at 1001 W Woodson Street, El Reno, Oklahoma 73036 (hereinafter “Woodson Property”) has not been determined by Defendant, or any agent or employee thereof, to be a dilapidated structure. Defendant has advised Plaintiff that it will proceed with demolition proceedings for the Woodson Property in violation of OKLA. STAT. tit. 12, § 22-112.
10. On April 10, 2026, Defendant entered into an agreement with Plaintiff by promising to forgo demolition and give Plaintiff the time needed to sell the Hayes, 318 Foster, and Woodson Properties. Defendant further promised that upon sale of the Properties, the purchaser would be allowed to do the necessary work to bring the Properties into compliance with the El Reno Code.
11. On April 18, 2026, Defendant proceeded with demolition on the 318 Foster Property in violation of the agreement entered with Plaintiff on April 10, 2026.
12. Plaintiff is entitled to declaratory judgment on the following issues:
a. Whether the structure located on the Hayes Property is a dilapidated structure pursuant to OKLA. STAT. tit. 12, § 22-112;
b. Whether Defendant was required to give Plaintiff an opportunity to demolish the structure located on the Hayes Property before Defendant authorized itself to proceed with demolition;
c. Whether Defendant was required to give Plaintiff an opportunity to demolish the structures located on the 308 Foster and 318 Foster Properties before Defendant authorized itself to proceed with demolition;
d. Whether Defendant was required to comply with the Competitive Bidding Act of 1974 when awarding a private contract for the demolition of the structures located on the 308 Foster and 318 Foster Properties.
13. Plaintiff should be granted a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining Defendant, and/or anyone acting on its behalf, from entering on the Properties and damaging, removing, tearing down, or taking any other action on said Properties while this action is pending.
14. Plaintiff should be granted an Injunction enjoining Defendant, and/or anyone acting on its behalf, from entering on the Properties and damaging, removing, tearing down, or taking any other action on said Properties.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: BREACH OF CONTRACT
15. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-14 above.
16. Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a Contract on April 10, 2026. In exchange for Plaintiff’s promise to find a buyer for the Hayes, 308 Foster, 318 Foster, and Woodson Properties, Defendant agreed to forgo demolition of said Properties and allow Plaintiff time to find a buyer for said Properties before Defendant proceeded with demolition.
17. Defendant breached the Contract on April 18, 2026, by failing to provide Plaintiff the time promised and by proceeding with demolition of the structure on the 318 Foster Property.
18. Plaintiff suffered damages as a result of Defendant’s breach through the loss of peaceable possession and use of the structure on the 318 Foster Property, and the loss of value of the 318 Foster Property due to the demolition of said structure.
19. Plaintiff prays this Court enforce the Contract and order Defendant allow Plaintiff the time needed to sell the Hayes and Woodson Properties before proceeding with demolition.
20. Plaintiff further prays this Court award her damages in the amount of actual damages suffered from the loss of peaceable possession and use of the 318 Foster Property resulting from Defendant’s breach.
21. Plaintiff further prays this Court award her damages in the amount of actual damages suffered from the loss of value of the 318 Foster Property. Resulting from Defendant’s breach.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL
22. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-21 above.
23. On April 10, 2026, Defendant promised to forgo demolition and give Plaintiff the time needed to sell the Hayes, 318 Foster, and Woodson Properties. Defendant further promised that upon sale, the new property owner would be allowed to do the necessary work to bring the properties into compliance with the El Reno Code.
24. Defendant has violated the promise made to Plaintiff, resulting in injustice, hardship and damage to Plaintiff.
25. Plaintiff, in reliance on the promise made by Defendant, made offers to and requested offers from potential buyers for said Properties. Said offers have been revoked and/or reduced due to Defendant’s refusal to honor the promise made on April 10, 2026.
26. Plaintiff, in reliance on the promise made by Defendant, waited to file a request for injunction against Defendant to prevent Defendant from demolishing the structures on the Properties. Defendant took advantage of this reliance and rushed to demolish the 318 Foster Property on April 18, 2026, resulting in Plaintiff’s loss of peaceable possession and use of
the 318 Foster Property, and the loss of value of the 318 Foster Property due to the demolition of the structure thereon.
27. Plaintiff’s reliance on Defendant’s promise was foreseeable by Defendant because Defendant was aware of the financial loss Plaintiff stood to suffer if Defendant proceeded with demolition. Further, Plaintiff’s reliance was foreseeable by Defendant because Defendant was aware that Plaintiff requested such a promise from Defendant for the purpose of avoiding litigation.
28. Plaintiff’s reliance on Defendant’s promise was reasonable because Defendant’s promise was made in response to Plaintiff’s request for such a promise and such promise was mutually beneficial for both parties.
29. On April 18, 2026, Defendant violated the promise made to Plaintiff by proceeding with demolition of the structure on the 318 Foster Property.
30. Plaintiff prays this Court enforce the promise made by Defendant to Plaintiff to provide her the time needed to sell the Hayes and Woodson Properties before Defendant proceeds with demolition.
31. Plaintiff further prays this Court award her damages in the amount of actual damages suffered from the loss of peaceable possession and use of the 318 Foster Property resulting from Defendant’s breach.
32. Plaintiff further prays this Court award her damages in the amount of actual damages suffered from the loss of value of the 318 Foster Property. Resulting from Defendant’s breach.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT
The Hayes Property Does Not Meet the Definition of a Dilapidated Structure
33. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-32 above.
34. A disagreement has arisen between the parties concerning their respective rights regarding Defendant's designation of the Hayes Property as a dilapidated structure.
35. OKLA. STAT. tit. 12, § 1651 provides:
District courts may, in cases of actual controversy, determine rights, status, or other legal relations, including but not limited to a determination of the construction or validity of any foreign judgment or decree, deed, contract, trust, or other instrument or agreement or of any statute, municipal ordinance, or other governmental regulation, whether or not other relief is or could be claimed, except that no declaration shall be made concerning liability or nonliability for damages on account of alleged tortious injuries to persons or to property either before or after judgment or for compensation alleged to be due under workers' compensation laws for injuries to persons. The determination may be made either before or after there has been a breach of any legal duty or obligation, and it may be either affirmative or negative in form and effect; provided however, that a court may refuse to make a determination where the judgment, if rendered, would not terminate the controversy, or some part thereof, giving rise to the proceeding. (emphasis added).
36. Defendant arbitrarily and capriciously determined the structure located on the Hayes Property to be dilapidated. Such determination was against the clear weight of the evidence and without rational consideration of relevant factors.
37. The Hayes Property does not meet the definition of a dilapidated structure pursuant to OKLA. STAT. tit. 12, § 22-112(C)(1) because it is not in such a state which would cause it to be a hazard to the health safety, or welfare of the general public, nor has it been determined to be unsecured more than three times within any twelve-month period, been boarded and secured for more than six (6) consecutive months, or declared to be a public nuisance.
38. Plaintiff prays this Court find that Defendant's determination that the structure located on the Hayes Property is a dilapidated structure was made arbitrarily and capriciously, find
that the structure does not fit the statutory definition of a dilapidated structure, and order Defendant to grant the Hayes Property a Certificate of Occupancy.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION: DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT
Defendant’s Authorization of Itself to Demolish the Hayes Property is a Violation of the El Reno Code of Ordinances
39. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-38 above.
40. A disagreement has arisen between the parties concerning their respective rights regarding Defendant’s authorization of itself to demolish the structure located at the Hayes Property.
41. The El Reno Code of Ordinances (hereinafter “El Reno Code”), § 142-901 adopts as governing law the International Property Maintenance Code (hereinafter “IPMC”).
42. The IPMC § 111.1 provides:
When the code official determines any structure is so old, dilapidated or has become so out of repair and is dangerous, unsafe, insanitary and otherwise unfit for human habitation or occupancy that code official can order either of the following:
1. The code official is permitted to authorize the owner or owner’s authorized agent to make the structure safe by repairs in order to make the structure safe and sanitary. Where there has been a cessation of construction repairs of any structure for a period of more than two years the structure will be ordered demolished and removed.
2. The code official is permitted to order the owner or owner’s authorized agent to demolish and remove any such structure. (emphasis added).
43. The IPMC § 111.3 provides:
If the owner of a premises or owner’s authorized agent fails to comply with a demolition order within the time prescribed, the code official shall cause the structure to be demolished and removed, either through an available public agency or arrangement with private persons, and the cost of such demolition and removal shall be charged against the real estate upon which the structure is located and shall be a lien upon such real estate. (emphasis added)
44. The IPMC §§ 111.1 and 111.3 clearly show that Defendant only has authority to demolish a property when Plaintiff has either failed to make repairs for two (2) years or has failed to comply with an order to demolish.
45. Defendant has failed to allow the required time for Plaintiff to repair the structure located on the Hayes Property and has failed to order Plaintiff to demolish the structure before authorizing itself to take action to demolish.
46. Defendant’s authorization of itself to demolish the structure is a clear violation of the procedure required for such authorization as set out in IPMC §§ 111.1 and 111.3.
47. Plaintiff prays this Court find that Defendant’s authorization to demolish the structure located at the Hayes Property is in violation of the El Reno Code, and order Defendant to follow the proper procedure before taking any action to demolish the structure located at the Hayes Property.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION: DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT
The 308 Foster and 318 Foster Properties Were Demolished in Violation of the El Reno Code of Ordinances
48. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-47 above.
49. A disagreement has arisen between the parties concerning their respective rights regarding Defendant’s demolition of the structures located on the 308 Foster and 318 Foster Properties.
50. The IPMC §§ 111.1 and 111.3 clearly show that Defendant only has authority to demolish a property when Plaintiff has either failed to make repairs for two (2) years or has failed to comply with an order to demolish.
51. Defendant failed to allow the required time for Plaintiff to repair the structure located on the 308 Foster and 318 Foster Properties and failed to order Plaintiff to demolish the structures before taking action itself to demolish the structures.
52. Defendant’s demolition of the structures is a clear violation of the procedure required for demolition as set out in IPMC §§ 111.1 and 111.3.
53. Plaintiff prays this Court find that Defendant’s demolition of the structures located on the 308 Foster and 318 Foster Properties was in violation of the El Reno Code, and order Defendant to release any and all liens, encumbrances, and determinations affecting the 308 Foster and 318 Foster Properties resulting from such demolition.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION: DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT
The 308 Foster and 318 Foster Properties Were Demolished Pursuant to a Contract for Demolition Entered by Defendant in Violation of the Competitive Bidding Act of 1974
54. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-53 above.
55. The El Reno Code § 93-1 adopts the Competitive Bidding Act of 1974 of the State of Oklahoma, codified as OKLA. STAT. tit 61, §§ 101 et seq.
56. OKLA. STAT. tit 61, § 104 provides:
All proposals to award public construction contracts shall be made equally and uniformly known by the awarding public agency to all prospective bidders and the public in the following manner:
1. Notice thereof shall be given electronically and by publication in a newspaper of general circulation and published in the county where the work, or the major part of it, is to be done, such notice by publication to be published in two consecutive weekly issues of the newspaper, with the first publication thereof to be at least twenty-one (21) days prior to the date set for opening bids; and
2. Notice thereof shall be sent to one in-state trade or construction publication for their use and information whenever the estimated cost of the public construction
contract exceeds One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) or the cost of the construction management trade contract or subcontract exceeds Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00); provided, however, this section shall not be construed to require the publication of the notice in such trade or construction publication or the requirement to provide the notice to more than one in-state trade or construction publication or to any out-of-state trade or construction publications.
57. Defendant failed to provide notice by publication of the proposal for contract in a newspaper of general circulation published in Canadian County and failed to provide such notice at least twenty-one (21) days prior to the date set for opening bids.
58. Defendant failed to provide electronic notice of the proposal for contract. Defendant maintains a website with a specific page intended for the electronic posting of bids for contract. This page can be found at elrenook.gov/bids.aspx. The last bid posted to this page closed on March 25, 2024.
59. By failing to comply with the Competitive Bidding Act of 1974, Defendant has violated Plaintiff’s right to have the contract for the demolition of the structures on the 308 Foster and 318 Foster Properties be awarded to the lowest bidder. Such violations have resulted and/or will result in a larger lien being placed on the Properties than necessary for the demolition of the structure.
60. Plaintiff prays this Court find that Defendant’s award of private construction contracts without providing proper electronic notice and notice by publication was in violation of the Competitive Bidding Act of 1974, find that such contracts are void, and order Defendant to release any and all liens, encumbrances, and determinations affecting the 308 Foster and 318 Foster Properties resulting from such action.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
61. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-60 above.
62. Pursuant to OKLA. STAT. tit. 12, 1384.1, this Court may grant an Emergency Temporary Restraining Order, without notice to the adverse party, if the moving party shows it will suffer immediate and irreparable injury, loss and damage by the anticipated acts of the absent party.
63. Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm through the loss of peaceable possession and use of the Hayes and Woodson Properties if Defendant enters on said Properties and damages, removes, tears down, or takes any other action on the structures on said Properties.
64. Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm through the loss of value of the Hayes and Woodson Properties if Defendant enters on said Properties and damages, removes, tears down, or takes any other action on the structures on said Properties.
65. The irreparable harm that Plaintiff will suffer by Defendant damaging, removing, tearing down, or taking any other action on the structures on said Properties far outweighs any potential damage that Defendant may incur if the Court grants an Emergency Temporary Restraining Order.
66. Defendant City of El Reno will incur no harm if the Court grants an Emergency Temporary Restraining Order.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION: INJUNCTION
67. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-66 above.
68. Pursuant to OKLA. STAT. tit. 12, §§ 1381 et seq., Plaintiff requests that this Court enter an Injunction against Defendant that prohibits and enjoins Defendant, or anyone acting on Defendant’s behalf, from entering the Hayes and Woodson Properties and damaging, removing, tearing down, or taking any other action on the structures on said Properties.
69. Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm and injury through the loss of peaceable possession and use of the Hayes and Woodson Properties if the Defendant enters said Properties and damages, removes, tears down, or takes any other action on the structures on said Properties unless this Court enters the requested Injunction.
70. Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm through the loss of value of the Hayes and Woodson Properties if Defendant enters on said Properties and damages, removes, tears down, or takes any other action on the structures on said Properties unless this Court enters the requested Injunction.
71. The irreparable harm that Plaintiff will suffer by Defendant damaging, removing, tearing down, or taking any other action on the structures on said Properties far outweighs any potential damage that Defendant may incur if the Court grants the requested Injunction.
72. Defendant City of El Reno will incur no harm if the Court grants the requested Injunction.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiff respectfully prays this Court: set this matter for hearing; expeditiously enter an Emergency Temporary Restraining Order and a subsequent Injunction prohibiting and enjoying Defendant from entering the Hayes and Woodson Properties and damaging, removing, tearing down, or taking any other action on the structures on said Properties; award Plaintiff the relief requested for Defendant's breach of contract or in the alternative award Plaintiff the relief requested for Defendant's breach of its promise to provide Plaintiff time to sell the Properties before proceeding with demolition; grant Plaintiff the declaratory relief sought through the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Causes of Action; and for such other and further relief the Court deems equitable and just.
Respectfully submitted,
[Signature]
Stephen D. Wolfe, OBA #36310
DENTON LAW FIRM
925 West State Highway 152
Mustang, Oklahoma 73064
Telephone: (405) 376-2212
Facsimile: (405) 376-2262
[email protected]
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
Verification
Lawanda Ilene Gore, of lawful age and sound mind, states under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Oklahoma that she is the above-named Plaintiff, that she has read the foregoing Petition and Request for Temporary Restraining Order/Injunction, and that the facts contained therein are true and correct to the best of her knowledge, information, and belief.
[Signature]
Lawanda Ilene Gore
