CJ-2026-84 - Danny O. West and Jacqueline West v. Terrence T. Reid

What's This Case About?

Let’s be real: the only thing more dangerous than a nosy neighbor is a spiteful one. And in Edmond, Oklahoma, a quiet suburban property dispute has exploded into a full-blown legal war after Danny and Jacqueline West—homeowners just trying to sell their house—allege that their next-door nemesis, Terrence T. Reid, sabotaged their sale with a campaign of lies, shady videos, and outright impersonation of a homeowners’ association enforcer. That’s right: one man, allegedly weaponizing neighborhood gossip, nearly derailed a $500K real estate deal and may now owe $75,000 in damages. Welcome to CrazyCivilCourt, where the stakes are high, the lawns are manicured, and the grudges are very personal.

Danny and Jacqueline West weren’t looking for drama—they were just ready to move on. After years living at 2178 Rivanna Way, a property nestled in the Bella Terra subdivision of Logan County, they decided it was time to sell. The house wasn’t just a home; it came with extra adjacent lots, giving them a little more elbow room than your average suburban plot. In February 2025, they struck what looked like a golden deal: a buyer ready to pay $515,000. Paperwork signed, due diligence period ticking—this was supposed to be a routine transaction. Enter Terrence T. Reid, who lives just down the road at 2269 Vellano Lane. Not a party to the sale. Not a family member. Not even asked. But somehow, deeply involved.

According to the Wests’ petition, Reid inserted himself into the deal like a real estate vigilante with a grudge. While the buyers were inspecting the property and reviewing contingencies, Reid allegedly started making unsolicited calls and sending communications to the buyers and their agents. His message? “That berm on the property? It’s illegal. The HOA is going to tear it out. You’re buying a drainage disaster.” Now, for the uninitiated, a berm is a small man-made hill—basically a landscaped speed bump for water runoff. The Wests built it specifically to manage drainage on their oddly shaped lot, and it was perfectly permitted. But Reid, the filing claims, told the buyers otherwise. He allegedly claimed the berm wasn’t approved, that the homeowners’ association was coming for it with bulldozers and bylaws, and that the whole thing was a ticking time bomb for flooding and legal headaches.

Even wilder? There were survey stakes around the property—placed by a third-party surveyor the Wests had hired to clarify boundaries. But Reid, according to the suit, told the buyers those markers were from the HOA, proof that enforcement action was imminent. He may have even sent videos and electronic messages reinforcing this narrative—essentially a one-man misinformation campaign, delivered via iMessage and real estate hearsay. The buyers, spooked by the idea of inheriting a legal and engineering nightmare, pulled out of the contract on February 27, 2025. Game over. Deal dead.

Now, selling a house is expensive when it doesn’t go according to plan. The Wests were stuck holding the bag—mortgage payments ticking, insurance piling up, property taxes due—while they scrambled to relist. Months passed. They eventually found another buyer, but this time, the price tag was $475,000. That’s a $40,000 haircut—on top of nearly $37,000 in extra carrying costs: mortgage, utilities, maintenance, you name it. And just when they thought they were in the clear? Reid allegedly tried it again during the second sale. The petition claims he contacted real estate agents involved in the new deal, repeating the same false claims about the berm and even threatening legal action. He also allegedly pretended he had authority to speak for the HOA—despite not being on the board or having any official role. That’s not just meddling. That’s impersonating a neighborhood cop.

So why are they in court? Legally, the Wests are making two big arguments. First: tortious interference with contract. That’s legalese for “you messed with our deal on purpose, and now you owe us.” They’re saying Reid had no business inserting himself, knew about the contract, and intentionally sabotaged it—not out of concern for zoning codes, but out of malice or some unexplained grudge. Second claim: fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation. Basically, “he lied, people believed him, and we got hurt.” The Wests argue Reid knew his claims about the berm and the HOA were false—or at least had zero evidence—but said them anyway to tank the sale. And because of that, they’re demanding over $75,000 in damages: $40,000 for the lost sale value, $36,750 for the extra costs of keeping the house on the market, and yes—punitive damages, because this wasn’t just a mistake. This was warfare.

Now, is $75,000 a lot? In a murder case, no. In a civil spat over a berm? Absolutely. We’re not talking about a house fire or a car crash. We’re talking about a man-made dirt hill and a guy with a phone and a vendetta. The Wests aren’t seeking bankruptcy-level compensation—they’re asking for what they actually lost, plus a little extra to punish Reid if the court agrees he acted maliciously. And let’s not forget: they’ve already won the war. The house did sell. The second buyer closed. But the emotional toll? The months of stress, the lower offer, the legal bills? That doesn’t come out of thin air. And in small-town real estate, reputation is everything. If word gets out that a property is “controversial,” the damage can linger long after the keys are handed over.

Here’s the thing we can’t stop thinking about: why? What did the Wests do to earn this level of neighborhood sabotage? Did they park too close to the property line? Did they oppose a zoning amendment at a HOA meeting? Did they dare to landscape without consulting the Reid Council of Suburban Order? The petition doesn’t say. There’s no mention of prior disputes, no history of noise complaints or fence feuds. Just a sudden, targeted campaign of deception from a man who apparently felt entitled to veto their sale. And the audacity of pretending to speak for the HOA? That’s next-level. You don’t get to play neighborhood sheriff just because you own a surveyor’s video and a pair of binoculars.

We’re entertainers, not lawyers—but even we can smell a grudge wrapped in bureaucracy. This case isn’t about a berm. It’s about power. It’s about control. It’s about what happens when someone decides they’re the unofficial gatekeeper of suburban normalcy and takes it upon themselves to enforce it—by any means necessary. And honestly? We’re rooting for the Wests. Not just because they’ve got receipts, not just because they’re out $75,000, but because nobody should have to sell their home under the shadow of a lying neighbor with a god complex and a Wi-Fi connection. If this goes to trial—and with a jury demand on file, it just might—we’ll be watching. With popcorn. And a notepad. Because in the world of petty civil drama, this one’s a masterpiece.

Case Overview

$75,000 Demand Jury Trial Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court of Logan County, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Mason J. Schwartz

Williams, Box, Forshee and Bullard, PC

Relief Sought

$1 Monetary

$1 Punitive

Plaintiffs

Danny O. West and Jacqueline West individual
Rep: Mason J. Schwartz, OBA #32864

Defendants

Terrence T. Reid individual

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Tortious Interference with Contract	Plaintiffs claim that Defendant interfered with their contract with a prospective buyer for the sale of their property.
2	Fraud, Deceit, and/or Misrepresentation	Plaintiffs claim that Defendant made false and misleading representations to the prospective buyer about the condition of the property.

Petition Text

1,348 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF LOGAN COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA DANNY O. WEST and JACQUELINE WEST ) husband and wife; ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) v. ) ) TERRENCE T. REID, an individual; ) ) Defendant. ) Case No. CJ-26-84 PETITION COME NOW, Plaintiffs, Danny O. West and Jacqueline West ("Plaintiffs"), and for their causes of action against Defendant, Terrence T. Reid ("Defendant"). Plaintiffs allege and states as follows: PARTIES AND JURISDICTION 1. Plaintiffs are the previous owners of the residential real property located at 2178 Rivanna Way, Edmond, Oklahoma, together with adjacent Lots within the boundaries of Logan County, Oklahoma, and more particularly described in the deed attached hereto as Exhibit 1 ("Property"). 2. Defendant resides at a nearby property located at 2269 Vellano Ln, Edmond, OK 73034. 3. Venue is proper in Logan County because the subject property and wrongful conduct occurred therein. 4. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter at issue in this dispute. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS Plaintiffs incorporate and adopt by reference each of the forgoing Paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 5. On or about February 9, 2025, Plaintiffs entered into a contract to sell the Property for $515,000 ("First Purchase Contract"). 6. Thereafter, during the contractual due diligence period for the First Purchase Contract, Defendant intentionally inserted himself into the transaction by contacting the prospective buyers ("Prospective Buyers") and/or the Prospective Buyers' agents/representatives without invitation or justification. 7. Upon information and belief, Defendant made multiple false and misleading representations to the Prospective Buyers and/or the Prospective Buyers' agents/representatives regarding the condition of the Property and/or the legal status of the improvements on the Property. 8. More specifically, upon information and belief, Defendant falsely stated to the Prospective Buyers and/or the Prospective Buyers' agents/representatives that a berm constructed on the parcels previously owned by Plaintiff was not permitted, and that the homeowners' association intended to remove it. 9. The berm in question was specifically erected to mitigate drainage impact, and the removal of the berm would have caused a material impact to the future condition of the Property. 10. Certain markers/indicators had been staked on/around the Property in relation to the berm, which were installed by a third-party survey company, being done in connection with a survey of the Property commissioned by Plaintiffs. 11. Upon information and belief, Defendant falsely represented to the Prospective Buyers and/or the Prospective Buyers' agents/representatives that said markers/indicators had been installed by the homeowners’ association, and reflected the homeowners’ association’s intent to remove the berm. 12. Upon information and belief, Defendant provided videos and/or electronic communications to the Prospective Buyers and/or the Prospective Buyers’ agents/representatives, reinforcing these false representations. 13. As a direct result of Defendant’s intentional and improper conduct, the Prospective Buyers terminated the First Purchase Contract on or about February 27, 2025. 14. Plaintiffs were forced to re-list the Property for sale, where it remained on the market for several additional months, incurring substantial carrying costs including mortgage payments, insurance, taxes, utilities, and maintenance expenses. 15. Ultimately, Plaintiffs were only able to secure a second contract at a reduced purchase price of $475,000 ("Second Purchase Contract"), resulting in a direct loss of $40,000 in sale value. 16. Defendant again attempted to interfere with the Second Purchase Contract by contacting the realtors and brokers involved with the sale, and making similar false statements, including threats of legal action related to the berm. 17. Upon information and belief, Defendant also falsely represented that he had authority to speak on behalf of the homeowners’ association or its board. 18. Despite Defendant’s continued interference, the Second Purchase Contract closed, though only after Plaintiffs sustained significant financial loss. CAUSE(S) OF ACTION: TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT Plaintiffs incorporate and adopt by reference each of the forgoing Paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 19. Plaintiffs had a valid contract with the Prospective Buyers for the sale of the Property under the First Purchase Contract. 20. Defendant had knowledge that the Prospective Buyers had entered into a contract with Plaintiffs to purchase the Property. 21. Defendant intentionally interfered with Plaintiffs’ contractual rights under the First Purchase Contract. 22. Defendant’s interference was malicious and wrongful, and such interference was neither justified nor excusable. 23. Plaintiffs suffered damages and financial loss as a result of Defendant’s interference. FRAUD, DECEIT AND/OR MISREPRESENTATION Plaintiffs incorporate and adopt by reference each of the forgoing Paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 24. Defendant made material representations to the Prospective Buyers and/or the Prospective Buyers’ agents/representatives regarding the condition of the Property and/or the legal status of the improvements on the Property. 25. Defendant’s representations included information that he knew to be false, or otherwise had no reasonable grounds for believing to be true. 26. Defendant made these representations with the intention of interfering the sale of the Property. 27. The Prospective Buyers acted in reliance on Defendant’s representations in deciding to terminate the First Purchase Contract, causing Plaintiffs to sustain damages. DAMAGES: Plaintiffs incorporate and adopt by reference each of the forgoing Paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 28. Plaintiffs’ damages include a loss of $40,000 in the sale price of the Property, as compared between the First Purchase Contract and Second Purchase Contract. 29. Plaintiffs’ damages include additional losses of at least $36,750 in carrying and incidental costs, including but not limited to mortgage payments, tax and insurance payments, HOA dues, utility payments, and maintenance costs, which Plaintiffs would not have otherwise incurred if the First Purchase Contract had been completed. 30. Defendant’s conduct was intentional, malicious, and/or in reckless disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights, warranting punitive damages. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgement against Defendant and request the following relief: (i) Plaintiffs request judgment exceeding $75,000, but not exceeding $250,000, therefore placing this case under the Oklahoma Expedited Actions Act (12 O.S. § 1775, et seq.); (ii) punitive damages; (iii) attorneys’ fees and costs; and (iv) all other relief the Court deems equitable and proper. Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury. Respectfully submitted, Mason J. Schwartz, OBA #32864 Williams, Box, Forshee & Bullard, PC 522 Colcord Drive Oklahoma City, OK 73102-2202 (405) 232-0080 (405) 236-5814 Fax [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs Danny O. West and Jacqueline West EXHIBIT 1 To Petition Tract 1: Lot Sixteen (16), Block Eight (8), BELLA TERRA SECTION 1, a part of the South Half (S/2) of Section 34, Township 15 North, Range 2 West of the Indian Meridian, Logan County, Oklahoma, according to the final plat recorded in Book 9 Plats, Page 4. AND Tract 2: A part of Lot Two (2), Block Nine (9) of BELLA TERRA SECTION II, to Logan County, Oklahoma, according to the recorded plat thereof, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest Corner of Lot 2 of Block 9; Thence North 62°23'12" East a distance of 71.53 feet to the Point of Beginning, said point being the Southwest Corner of Lot Sixteen (16), Block Eight (8) of BELLA TERRA SECTION I to Logan County, Oklahoma according to the recorded plat thereof; Thence continuing North 62°23'12" East a distance of 135.26 feet; Thence North 69°48'20" East a distance of 20.00 feet; Thence South 20°11'40" East a distance of 40.68 feet to a point on a curve to the left having a chord bearing of South 50°44'47" West and a chord distance of 91.76 feet, a central angle of 65°20'09" and radius of 85.00 feet for a distance of 96.93 feet; Thence North 71°55'17" West a distance of 85.85 feet to the Point of Beginning. VERIFICATION STATE OF OKLAHOMA ) COUNTY OF OKLAHOMA ) I, Danny O. West, verify that I have read the foregoing document, and that the facts and matters set forth therein are true and correct, to the best of my knowledge and belief. Signature: Danny O West Name (printed): Danny O West *portion to be completed by notary* Subscribed and sworn to before me this 37th day of March, 2026. My Commission No.: E012948 My Commission Expires: 13/AC/26 (SEAL) Notary Public VERIFICATION STATE OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY OF OKLAHOMA I, Jacqueline West, verify that I have read the foregoing document, and that the facts and matters set forth therein are true and correct, to the best of my knowledge and belief. Signature: [signature] Name (printed): Jacqueline West *portion to be completed by notary* Subscribed and sworn to before me this 27th day of March, 2026. My Commission No.: 22007488 My Commission Expires: Nov. 10, 2026 (SEAL) Notary Public ZOE PATTON NOTARY PUBLIC