CJ-2026-00038 - Phyllis Harland v. Cherlyn Rushing

What's This Case About?

Let’s cut right to the chase: a family is now at war over a $10,000 piece of Oklahoma dirt — and the battle involves allegations of forged deeds, shady notaries, suspicious wills, and a full-blown civil conspiracy that reads like a Lifetime movie script. Welcome to the Rushing family reunion, where love, trust, and common sense appear to have taken an early exit.

So who are these people? Picture a sprawling family tree with too many branches and not enough common sense. At the root was Mary Virginia Rushing, a now-deceased matriarch who owned a modest property at 1311 East Chickasaw Avenue in McAlester, Oklahoma — a plot of land described in legal terms as “the easterly seventy feet of Lot Six,” which sounds about as glamorous as it actually is. From this humble patch of earth, a family feud has erupted with the fury of a reality TV season finale. On one side: Phyllis Harland and Kevin Rushing, who claim to be rightful heirs. On the other: Cherlyn Rushing, Bernita Rushing, Nicole Porter, and Kimberley DeBose — relatives who, according to the plaintiffs, swooped in during the final months of Mary Virginia’s life and allegedly pulled off a real estate heist worthy of a soap opera.

The drama kicks off with a woman in decline. According to the filing, Mary Virginia Rushing was taking prescription medication in the year before her death that left her forgetful, confused, and increasingly dependent on others. That’s the kind of vulnerability that, in civil court, tends to raise red flags — especially when, suddenly, a deed appears out of nowhere. On July 25, 2024, a quitclaim deed was signed — or allegedly signed — transferring full ownership of the McAlester property to Cherlyn Rushing, presumably Mary Virginia’s daughter. Then, on August 8, 2024, that deed was filed with the county clerk. Standard procedure? Maybe. But here’s where it gets juicy: the notary who certified the signature was Bernita Rushing — Mary Virginia’s niece. The two witnesses? Nicole Porter and Kimberley DeBose — both in-laws of Cherlyn. So let’s be clear: the people verifying the signature were all closely related to the beneficiary. That’s like having your cousin officiate your wedding, your sister sign as a witness, and your best friend from childhood serve as the judge — and then being surprised when someone calls conflict of interest.

But wait — it gets weirder. Mary Virginia died on January 5, 2025. And then, six months later, during probate proceedings, Cherlyn allegedly produced a last will and testament — one that conveniently names her as the sole beneficiary and executor. Surprise! Only… no one’s seen it. It hasn’t been filed with the court. And guess who notarized it? Bernita Rushing. And who witnessed it? Nicole Porter and Kimberley DeBose. Sound familiar? It’s the same crew, the same script, the same suspicious timing. The plaintiffs aren’t just saying “that’s odd” — they’re saying “that’s fraud.” They allege Mary Virginia would never have signed away her home if she’d been in her right mind, and that these documents may have been forged or signed under duress. They also claim Cherlyn blocked them from accessing the property after the death — which wouldn’t be a big deal, except that Kevin Rushing had personal belongings stored in the house. Now he can’t get them back. And no, we’re not talking about a forgotten jacket or a spare toothbrush. The filing suggests his property may have already been tossed, trashed, or taken. So not only did they allegedly steal the house — they might’ve thrown out Kevin’s stuff too. Real classy.

So why are they in court? Let’s break it down like we’re explaining it to a jury of your nosy neighbors. First, the plaintiffs want the quitclaim deed erased — legally voided — because they say it was signed under undue influence, fraud, or duress, or that Mary Virginia lacked the mental capacity to sign it at all. That’s Claim One: Set Aside the Deed. Claim Two is simpler: Kevin wants his stuff back. If Cherlyn won’t let him retrieve it, and if she’s damaged or disposed of it, that’s “conversion” — a fancy legal term that basically means “you stole my property, give it back or pay up.” Claim Three? Fraud. They’re accusing all four defendants of lying — about the deed, about the will, about Mary Virginia’s mental state — with the intent to deceive everyone and grab the property. And Claim Four? Oh, it’s the pièce de résistance: civil conspiracy. That’s when multiple people agree to do something illegal or wrongful together. The plaintiffs are saying these four didn’t just act suspiciously — they colluded, like a family crime syndicate with notary stamps instead of guns.

Now, what do they want? The plaintiffs are asking the court to undo the deed, give Kevin access to his belongings, award more than $10,000 in damages, and slap on punitive damages — not because they necessarily lost six figures, but to punish the defendants and say, “Hey, don’t do this to someone else’s grandma.” Is $10,000 a lot for a disputed piece of land and some missing personal items? In the grand scheme of lawsuits, it’s not exactly Scandal-level money. But for a plot of land in McAlester? It might be most of its value. This isn’t about millions — it’s about principle, legacy, and the bitter taste of being cut out of a will by your own relatives. And let’s not forget: they’re also asking for attorney’s fees, interest, and “any other relief the court deems just.” Translation: “We want to win so badly, we’ll take a handwritten apology if you’re out of cash.”

Our take? Look, family fights over inheritances are as American as apple pie and passive aggression at Thanksgiving. But this one has layers. The same people notarizing and witnessing both the deed and the will? A will that mysteriously appears months after death but hasn’t been filed? A relative blocking access to the property and possibly trashing someone’s belongings? And a conspiracy claim that turns a property dispute into a full-blown family thriller? It’s almost impressive in its audacity. The most absurd part? Not the alleged fraud, not the missing will — it’s the sheer lack of subtlety. If you’re going to pull off a family inheritance heist, maybe don’t use the same three relatives as witnesses twice. Maybe don’t notarize your own family member’s documents. Maybe don’t block everyone from the house like you’re guarding a secret bunker. It’s not Ocean’s Eleven — it’s Oklahoma’s Eleven, and the plan had more holes than a screen door.

We’re not rooting for bloodshed. We’re not even rooting for someone to “win.” But we are rooting for the truth to come out. Was Mary Virginia Rushing really capable of signing that deed? Did she want Cherlyn to have everything — or did someone take advantage of her fading mind? And where, for the love of all that’s holy, is Kevin’s stuff? Until then, grab your popcorn. This one’s going to court — and it’s going to be petty, personal, and gloriously dramatic.

Case Overview

Jury Trial Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Joel A. LaCourse

LaCourse Law, PLLC

Relief Sought

$10,000 Monetary

$1 Punitive

Injunctive Relief

Declaratory Relief

Plaintiffs

Phyllis Harland individual
Rep: LaCourse Law, PLLC
Kevin Rushing individual
Rep: LaCourse Law, PLLC

Defendants

Cherlyn Rushing individual
Bernita Rushing individual
Nicole Porter individual
Kimberley DeBose individual

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Set Aside Quit Claim Deed	Plaintiffs seek to set aside a quit claim deed allegedly signed by the decedent under undue influence, fraud, and duress
2	Conversion	Plaintiff Kevin Rushing seeks to recover personal property allegedly converted by the defendants
3	Fraud	Plaintiffs allege that the defendants committed fraud in obtaining the quit claim deed and the last will and testament
4	Civil Conspiracy	Plaintiffs allege that the defendants entered into an agreement to engage in wrongful acts against the plaintiffs

Petition Text

1,551 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF PITTSBURG COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA PHYLLIS HARLAND, an individual, KEVIN RUSHING, an individual, Plaintiffs, v. CHERLYN RUSHING, an individual, BERNITA RUSHING, an individual, NICOLE PORTER, an individual, and KIMBERLEY DEBOSE, an individual, Defendants. PETITION COMES NOW, the Plaintiffs, Phyllis Harland and Kevin Rushing, by and through their counsel of record, Joel A. LaCourse, J. Hal Trentman, and Zachary M. Keen of LaCourse Law, PLLC, and hereby present their causes of action against the Defendants, Cherlyn Rushing, Bernita Rushing, Nicole Porter, and Kimberley DeBose. In support of her causes of action hereto, the Plaintiffs hereby allege and state as follows: PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE 1. Plaintiff Phyllis Harland is a resident of Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, at all times relevant hereto. 2. Plaintiff Kevin Rushing is a resident of Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, at all times relevant hereto. 3. Defendant Cherlyn Rushing is a resident of Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, at all times relevant hereto. 4. Defendant Bernita Rushing, upon information and belief, is a resident of Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, at all times relevant hereto. 5. Defendant Nicole Porter, upon information and belief, is a resident of Harris County, State of Texas, at all times relevant hereto. 6. Defendant Kimberley DeBose, upon information and belief, is a resident of Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, at all times relevant hereto. 7. This case is brought before this Court so that it can exercise subject matter jurisdiction on any basis consistent with the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma. 8. Venue is proper pursuant to 12 O.S. § 131 as part of the subject matter of this action is the recission of a deed filed on property located in Pittsburg County, State of Oklahoma. MATERIAL FACTS COMMON AS TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 9. The allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs are hereby incorporated herein as if set forth fully herein verbatim. 10. The Plaintiffs and the Defendant are descendants of Mary Virginia Rushing ("the Decedent"). 11. The Decedent owned physical property located at 1311 East Chickasaw Avenue, McAlester, Oklahoma, more particularly described as follows: The Easterly Seventy (70) feet of Lot Six (6), in Block Three Hundred Sixty-Nine (369) City of McAlester, Formerly South McAlester, Pittsburg County, State of Oklahoma. 12. In the year preceding her death, the Decedent was taking prescription medication which affected her state of mind, causing forgetfulness, confusion, and memory loss. As a result, the Decedent became increasingly dependent on others to manage her affairs, making her susceptible to fraud and undue influence. 13. On August 8, 2024, a Quit Claim Deed concerning the Decedent’s property was filed with the County Clerk of Pittsburg County, Oklahoma. 14. This document was purportedly signed by the Decedent on July 25, 2024, and purported to transfer ownership to the Defendant. 15. The document was signed by a notary public and witnesses who are closely related to the Defendant and would stand to benefit from the Defendant’s ownership of the Decedent’s property. Namely, the notary, Defendant Bernita Rushing, is the Decedent’s niece, and the witnesses are co-Defendants Nicole Porter and Kimberley DeBose, who are in-laws of Defendant Cherlyn Rushing. 16. The Plaintiffs allege that the Decedent would never have signed that document if she was in her proper state of mind, or that the Defendant forged the document. 17. The Decedent passed away on January 5, 2025. 18. Plaintiff Kevin Rushing had stored personal property in the Decedent’s house. 19. The Defendant has prevented him from accessing the property to recover his personal belongings and has possibly disposed of some of his belongings. 20. That since the Decedent’s passing, the Defendant has blocked the Plaintiffs from accessing the property. 21. That approximately six (6) months after the Decedent’s passing and after the institution of probate proceedings, the Defendant produced a document purported to be the Last Will and Testament of the Decedent but has not presented it to this Court. 22. The purported Will was allegedly signed on July 3, 2024, in front of the same Notary and Witnesses who signed the purported Deed transferring ownership of the Decedent’s property. CAUSES OF ACTION FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Set Aside Quit Claim Deed- Plaintiffs v. Cherlyn Rushing) 23. The allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs are hereby incorporated herein as if set forth fully herein verbatim. 24. The Plaintiffs are heirs-at-law of Decedent Mary Virginia Rushing. 25. The Defendant is also an heir-at-law of Decedent Mary Virginia Rushing. 26. That Decedent was the owner of real property located at 1311 East Chickasaw Ave., McAlester, Oklahoma, more particularly described as: The Easterly Seventy (70) feet of Lot Six (6), in Block Three Hundred Sixty-Nine (369) City of McAlester, Formerly South McAlester, Pittsburg County, State of Oklahoma. 27. That a Quitclaim Deed was filed with the Pittsburg County Clerk on the 8th day of August 2024 purportedly conveying the property to Defendant Cherlyn Rushing. A copy of the Deed is attached as Exhibit “A”. 28. The Deed was purportedly signed by the Decedent on July 25, 2024. 29. This deed was signed by the Decedent under undue influence, fraud and duress. 30. In the alternative, upon information and belief, Mary Virginia Rushing lacked capacity to execute the purported deed. 31. The purported Notary Public, Bernita Rushing, is a close relative of Cherlyn Rushing and stands to gain from bearing false witness to the false deed. 32. The purported Witnesses, Kimberly DeBose and Nicole Porter, are also close relatives of Cherlyn Rushing and stand to gain from bearing false witness to the false deed. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Conversion- Kevin Rushing v. Cherlyn Rushing) 33. The allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs are hereby incorporated herein as if set forth fully herein verbatim. 34. Within the Decedent’s home, the Plaintiff had stored several pieces of his personal property which he independently owned. 35. The Defendant has wrongfully prevented the Plaintiff from entering the Decedent’s property to retrieve his personal property. 36. The Plaintiff has suffered damages as a result of the Defendant’s conduct. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Fraud- All Plaintiffs v. All Defendants) 37. The allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs are hereby incorporated herein as if set forth fully herein verbatim. 38. That the Defendants fraudulently stated that the Decedent signed a Quit Claim Deed when she did not have the capacity to sign a Quit Claim Deed of her property to her daughter. 39. That Defendants Nicole Porter and Kimberley DeBose, in signing their names to the Deed, asserted that the Decedent was of sound mind and voluntarily executed the Quit Claim Deed when they knew she was not, or that she fraudulently stated that the Decedent signed the Deed when she did not. 40. That Defendant Bernita Rushing, in notarizing the Decedent’s signature and later filing an Affidavit stating that she followed proper procedure, stated that the Decedent was of sound mind when she was not or that she fraudulently stated that the Decedent signed the Deed when she did not. 41. That Defendant Cherlyn Rushing allowed the Decedent to sign the Quit Claim Deed when she knew that she did not have the mental capacity to sign it. 42. That Defendant Cherlyn Rushing has purported a Will which does not have the valid signature of the Decedent on it on which she is named as the sole executor and sole devisee and legatee. 43. Such behavior was not in the Decedent’s character. 44. That Defendant Bernita Rushing, in notarizing the Last Will and Testament, perpetrated a fraud in notarizing the Decedent’s signature when she either did not sign it or was not of sound mind to sign it. 45. That Defendant Nicole Porter and Kimberley DeBose made a false statement when they signed the purported Last Will and Testament of the Decedent as witnesses, stating that the Decedent was of sound mind when she was not, or that she had not signed the Last Will and Testament. 46. That the Defendants made these statements with the intent to deceive the world, including the Plaintiffs, of the Decedent’s intentions. 47. The Plaintiffs have suffered damages as a result of others’ reliance on these statements. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Civil Conspiracy- All Plaintiffs v. All Defendants) 48. The allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs are hereby incorporated herein as if set forth fully herein verbatim. 49. The Defendants entered into an agreement to engage in wrongful acts as alleged herein against the Plaintiffs, heirs-at-law of the Decedent, for their personal benefit and for the benefit of each other. The Defendants engaged in the wrongful acts set forth herein in furtherance of their agreement, causing injury to the Plaintiffs. These Defendants are therefore jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiffs for any injury incurred in the course of the conspiracy. PRAYER WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Plaintiffs pray that this Court would enter a judgment in their favor and against the Defendant, enter an Order rescinding the Quit Claim Deed signed on July 25, 2024 and filed on August 8, 2024, enter an Order awarding Plaintiff Kevin Rushing possession of his personal property, award compensatory damages in an amount exceeding $10,000.00, award punitive damages to deter others similarly situated from engaging in similar conduct, prejudgment interest, post-judgment interest, costs, a reasonable attorney’s fee, and any other ancillary relief to which they may be entitled, including any relief deemed by this Court to be equitable and just. Respectfully submitted, LaCourse Law, PLLC Joel A. LaCourse, OBA #17082 J. Hal Trentman, OBA #34573 Zachary M. Keen, OBA #33016 302 E. Reconciliation Way Tulsa, Oklahoma 74120 Telephone: (918) 744-7100 Facsimile: (918) 477-2299 [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs