CJ-2026-1503 - Kent Bowman v. Liam Gorman

What's This Case About?

Let’s be real: you don’t sue someone for $43,500 over a driveway unless it’s spectacularly bad — or unless the contractor ghosted you like an ex who still owes you money for concert tickets. But Kent and Benjamin Bowman didn’t just get a bad resurfacing job. They got billed for a warranty that never existed, paid extra for repairs that lasted less than a week, and were left with what sounds like a glorified dirt path with commitment issues. This isn’t just a busted driveway. This is betrayal — in gravel form.

Meet the Bowmans: two brothers from Guthrie, Oklahoma, who apparently share not only a last name but also a dream — a smooth, durable, non-dusty driveway stretching across 51,000 square feet of their property. That’s not a driveway. That’s a runway. Maybe for a small aircraft. Or a very ambitious go-kart league. Either way, they wanted it done right. So in September 2024, they called up Liam Gorman and his company, County Asphalt, Paving and Chip Seal — which sounds like a heavy metal band, but is, in fact, a paving contractor based in Moore, Oklahoma. The deal? $39,000 for a full chip seal treatment, including tack coat and grading, with a shiny three-year warranty clearly written into the contract. Kent even texted Gorman to double-check: “Hey, this includes a three-year warranty, right?” Gorman said yes. Boom. Deal sealed. Literally, they hoped.

The Bowmans paid the full $39,000 on September 26, 2024. Gorman cashed the check. No red flags. Just two guys trusting a man whose job is to make things solid. And then… well, things got unsolid. Fast. According to the lawsuit, the finished driveway was a mess — full of holes, dirt patches, and generally looking like it had been assembled by raccoons with a grudge. It was dusty, uneven, and structurally questionable — less “luxury estate entrance” and more “post-apocalyptic backroad.” The Bowmans reached out, as any reasonable person would, asking for fixes under the warranty. But instead of honoring the three-year promise, Gorman came back with a different offer: pay us another $4,500, and we’ll fog-seal it. Again. Like, as a favor. And the Bowmans — possibly desperate, possibly naive, possibly just tired of tracking gravel into their boots — said fine. They paid the extra $4,500 in April 2025. The invoice, labeled Exhibit A, proudly claimed the work included flattening, rolling, hole-filling, and a full fog seal with something called “oil base hardener coating CS51H,” which sounds like a chemical weapon but is apparently a real thing used in pavement stabilization.

And then… it failed. Within a week. The repairs crumbled. The dust returned. The holes came back — some old, some new, like the driveway was evolving into a sinkhole simulator. The surface remained unstable. The warranty? Nowhere to be seen. The Bowmans kept reaching out. Radio silence. Finally, in October 2025, their lawyer sent a formal letter. Still nothing. No response. No repairs. No refund. Just tumbleweeds and loose gravel.

So now they’re in Oklahoma County District Court, demanding $43,500 — the original $39,000 plus the $4,500 “fix” that didn’t fix anything. And they’re not just mad — they’re creative with their legal claims. First up: Breach of Contract — you promised a three-year chip seal, you delivered a one-week disaster, and you took our money. Simple. Then Fraud — you knew it wouldn’t last, you knew the warranty was a lie, and you said it anyway to get paid. Strong words, but not unheard of in the world of shoddy construction. Then Unjust Enrichment — you got paid for work that wasn’t done properly, so you shouldn’t get to keep the money. And finally, Wrongful Conversion — which, in normal human terms, means you stole our money by pretending you’d honor the warranty and then just… not doing it. That last one’s a little spicy. Conversion is usually for when someone takes your property. Here, the Bowmans are arguing that by accepting payment under false pretenses, Gorman converted their money into his own through deception. It’s a stretch — but hey, when your driveway disintegrates faster than a cookie in milk, you go for the legal jugular.

Now, let’s talk about the $43,500. Is that a lot? For a driveway? Honestly — for 51,000 square feet? Not crazy expensive. That’s about 85 cents per square foot, which is actually below average for professional chip sealing, especially with labor, materials, and grading included. But the issue isn’t the price. It’s the value. The Bowmans didn’t get a driveway. They got a money pit with potholes. And they paid twice. That’s like buying a car, having it break down the next day, paying the mechanic to “fix” it, and then having it catch fire in the parking lot. At that point, you don’t want a new muffler. You want your money back — and possibly a class-action suit.

So what’s the most absurd part? Is it that the repairs failed in one week? Is it that they had to pay extra to fix something that should’ve been covered? Is it the sheer audacity of cashing a $39,000 check and delivering a surface that couldn’t survive a light rain? No. The most absurd part is that the warranty was texted into existence. “Hey, three-year warranty, right?” “Yep.” And that text — that flimsy, ephemeral, easily-deleted text — is now the foundation of a $43,500 lawsuit. That’s the modern world, folks. Our contracts are made in iMessage. Our betrayals are documented in SMS. And our justice? Well, that’s still stuck in paper form, with notarized verifications and attorney lien claims.

We’re rooting for the Bowmans. Not because we hate asphalt contractors (we don’t). Not because we think every bad job deserves a lawsuit (we don’t). But because they paid for a promise — a simple, clear, texted promise — and got nothing but dust and silence in return. If you’re going to sell a three-year warranty, you better be ready to stand by it. Otherwise, don’t be surprised when two brothers with a giant driveway and a lawyer show up ready to chip seal your reputation into oblivion.

Jury trial demanded. Popcorn prepared. We’re watching.

Case Overview

$43,500 Demand Jury Trial Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Renee D. Little

Oklahoma Conflict Resolution Consultants, LLC

Relief Sought

$43,500 Monetary

Plaintiffs

Kent Bowman individual
Rep: Renee D. Little, OBA #22630
Benjamin Bowman individual
Rep: Renee D. Little, OBA #22630

Defendants

Liam Gorman individual
County Asphalt, Paving and Chip Seal business

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Breach of Contract	Defendants failed to provide chip seal, tack coat, and grading services as contracted, causing damages of $43,500.
2	Fraud	Defendants made false representations about the quality of the work and the duration of the warranty, causing damages of $43,500.
3	Unjust Enrichment	Defendants were enriched by $43,500 due to their breach of contract and failure to provide a three-year warranty.
4	Wrongful Conversion	Defendants failed to notify the plaintiffs of their intention not to honor the three-year warranty, causing damages of $43,500.

Petition Text

1,749 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA KENT BOWMAN, individually and BENJAMIN BOWMAN, individually, Plaintiff, vs. LIAM GORMAN, individually, and COUNTY ASPHALT, PAVING and CHIP SEAL, Defendants. PETITION COMES NOW Plaintiffs, Kent Bowman, individually, and Benjamin Bowman, individually (hereinafter "Plaintiffs"), by and through their counsel of record, and for their causes of action against Defendants, Liam Gorman, individually and County Asphalt, Paving, and Chip Seal, alleges and states as follows: 1. Plaintiff Kent Bowman is a resident of Guthrie, Logan County, State of Oklahoma. 2. Plaintiff Benjamin Bowman is a residence of Guthrie, Logan County, State of Oklahoma. 3. Defendant Liam Gorman is a resident of Moore, Cleveland County, State of Oklahoma. 4. Defendant County Asphalt, Paving and Chip Seal has its principal place of business in Moore, Cleveland County, State of Oklahoma. 5. This action arises out Defendants breach of contract for the asphalt, paving and chip seal services to be provided at Plaintiffs' property located in Guthrie, Oklahoma (hereinafter referred to as the "Project"). FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS 6. On or about September 20, 2024, Plaintiff contracted with Defendants to provide chip seal, tack coat and grading to Plaintiff's driveway. 7. Defendants agreed to provide material and labor for approximately fifty-one thousand (51,000) square feet for a total price of Thirty-Nine Thousand Dollars ($39,000.00). 8. The contract entered into between the parties clearly states the material includes a three (3) year chip seal. 9. On or about September 20, 2024, Plaintiff sent text communication to Defendant Gorman confirming the Project included a three (3) year warranty. Defendant Gorman confirmed the same. 10. Plaintiff made payment in full in the amount of Thirty-Nine Thousand Dollars ($39,000.00) on or about September 26, 2024. 11. Defendant Liam Gorman cashed and deposited the Thirty-Nine Thousand Dollars ($39,000.00) check on the same date. 12. Due to Defendants' failure to properly and in conformance with industry standards complete the Project, the Project contained holes and dirt areas and was not properly sealed. 13. Plaintiff reached out to Defendants requesting, the defects be repaired in accordance with the contract entered into between the parties. 14. Despite the contract containing a three (3) year warranty, Petitioner paid Defendants an additional payment in the amount of Four Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($4,500.00) to apply a fog sealant. 15. Defendants sent the invoice attached hereto as Exhibit "A" to Plaintiff and the same was paid on or about April 12, 2025. 16. As evidenced on Exhibit “A”, Defendants allegedly flatted and rolled the entire surface of the road/driveway, fixed all holes and dirt areas, and fog sealed the entire driveway with oil base hardener coating CS51H. 17. However, since April 12, 2025, the Project has continued to show Defendants’ failure to adequately and appropriately apply the materials. 18. More specifically, the repairs allegedly made by Defendants in April 2025 failed within one (1) week. 19. Additionally, the Project continues to be dusty indicating Defendants did not appropriately and adequately apply oil and fog seal, holes in the driveway remain present with additional and new holes appearing, and the surface of the driveway is not solid. 20. Plaintiff reached out to Defendants on multiple occasions to no avail. 21. On or about October 9, 2025, counsel for Plaintiffs sent correspondence to Defendants regarding the issues evidenced herein. To date, no response has been received. 22. Defendants have failed to adequately and appropriately provide the materials and labor as contracted for by Plaintiff. 23. Defendants have wholly failed to provide the three (3) year warranty as stated in the contract between the parties. COUNT 1: BREACH OF CONTRACT 24. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 23 above as though fully set forth herein. 25. On or about September 20, 2024, Plaintiff contracted with Defendants to provide chip seal, tack coat and grading to Plaintiff's driveway. 26. Defendants agreed to provide material and labor for approximately fifty-one thousand (51,000) square feet for a total price of Thirty-Nine Thousand Dollars ($39,000.00). 27. The contract entered into between the parties clearly states the material includes a three (3) year chip seal. 28. On or about September 20, 2024, Plaintiff sent text communication to Defendant Gorman confirming the Project included a three (3) year warranty. Defendant Gorman confirmed the same. 29. Plaintiff made payment in full in the amount of Thirty-Nine Thousand Dollars ($39,000.00) on or about September 26, 2024. 30. Plaintiff reached out to Defendants requesting, the defects be repaired in accordance with the contract entered into between the parties. 31. Despite the contract containing a three (3) year warranty, Petitioner paid Defendants an additional payment in the amount of Four Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($4,500.00) to apply a fog sealant. 32. Defendants sent the invoice attached hereto as Exhibit "A" to Plaintiff and the same was paid on or about April 12, 2025. 33. As evidenced on Exhibit "A", Defendants allegedly flattened and rolled the entire surface of the road/driveway, fixed all holes and dirt areas, and fog sealed the entire driveway with oil base hardener coating CS51H. 34. However, since April 12, 2025, the Project has continued to show Defendants' failure to adequately and appropriately apply the materials. 35. More specifically, the repairs allegedly made by Defendants in April 2025 failed within one (1) week. 36. Additionally, the Project continues to be dusty indicating Defendants did not appropriately and adequately apply oil and fog seal, holes in the driveway remain present with additional and new holes appearing, and the surface of the driveway is not solid. 37. Due to Defendants breach of contract, Plaintiff has suffered damages in the amount of Forty-Three Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($43,500.00). COUNT II: FRAUD 38. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 37 above as though fully set forth herein. 39. Defendants made material representations to Plaintiff that the Project would be completed in a substantial and workmanlike manner and would have a three (3) year warranty. 40. That at the time said material representations were made, Defendants was aware said material representations were false or made recklessly. 41. That Defendants knew or should have known his material representations were false, or that Defendants made such representations recklessly, without any knowledge of their truth. 42. That Defendants made said representations with the intention that Plaintiff would act upon the same. 43. Plaintiff relied upon Defendants’ material representation that the project would be completed in a substantial and workmanlike manner and would have a three (3) year warranty. 44. Due to Defendants’ material representations Plaintiff suffered harm and injury thereby including economic loss. 45. Due to Defendants’ fraud, Plaintiff suffered damages in the amount of Forty-Three Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($43,500.00). COUNT III: UNJUST ENRICHMENT 46. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 45 above as though fully set forth herein. 47. On or about September 20, 2024, Plaintiff contracted with Defendants to provide chip seal, tack coat and grading to Plaintiff’s driveway. 48. Defendants agreed to provide material and labor for approximately fifty-one thousand (51,000) square feet for a total price of Thirty-Nine Thousand Dollars ($39,000.00). 49. The contract entered into between the parties clearly states the material includes a three (3) year chip seal. 50. On or about September 20, 2024, Plaintiff sent text communication to Defendant Gorman confirming the Project included a three (3) year warranty. Defendant Gorman confirmed the same. 51. Plaintiff made payment in full in the amount of Thirty-Nine Thousand Dollars ($39,000.00) on or about September 26, 2024. 52. Plaintiff reached out to Defendants requesting, the defects be repaired in accordance with the contract entered into between the parties. 53. Despite the contract containing a three (3) year warranty, Petitioner paid Defendants an additional payment in the amount of Four Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($4,500.00) to apply a fog sealant. 54. Defendants sent the invoice attached hereto as Exhibit "A" to Plaintiff and the same was paid on or about April 12, 2025. 55. As evidenced on Exhibit "A", Defendants allegedly flatted and rolled the entire surface of the road/driveway, fixed all holes and dirt areas, and fog sealed the entire driveway with oil base hardener coating CS51H. 56. However, since April 12, 2025, the Project has continued to show Defendants' failure to adequately and appropriately apply the materials. 57. More specifically, the repairs allegedly made by Defendants in April 2025 failed within one (1) week. 58. Additionally, the Project continues to be dusty indicating Defendants did not appropriately and adequately apply oil and fog seal, holes in the driveway remain present with additional and new holes appearing, and the surface of the driveway is not solid. 59. Plaintiff relied upon Defendants' promise that the Project would include a three (3) year warranty and would be completed in a substantial and workmanlike manner. 60. Plaintiff suffered an injustice as a result of the Defendants breach of contract. 61. As a direct and/or proximate result of the breach of contract and unjust enrichment described above, Plaintiff have suffered harms and losses in the amount of Forty-Three Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($43,500.00). COUNT IV: WRONGFUL CONVERSION 62. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 Petition Page 7 of 9 through 61 above as though fully set forth herein. 63. Defendants had a duty to notify Plaintiff they had no intention of honoring the three (3) year warranty included in the Contract. 64. Defendants in clear derogation of the duty owed by them, breached such duty by failing to advise Plaintiffs of his intention to not to honor the warranty. 65. Defendants’ negligence caused the harms and losses complained of herein by Plaintiff. 66. Defendants’ negligence proximately and directly caused Plaintiff to suffer financial harms and losses. 67. As a result, Plaintiffs have suffered harms and losses in an amount in the amount of Forty-Three Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($43,500.00). WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiff, Kent Bowman, pray for judgment against Defendants, above named, in the amount of Forty-Three Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($43,500.00), plus costs, interest, attorney fees, and such other relief as the Court may deem equitable, just and proper. Respectfully submitted, Renee D. Little, OBA #22630 OKLAHOMA CONFLICT RESOLUTION CONSULTANTS, LLC 1460 N. Mustang Road, Suite 112 Mustang, Oklahoma 73064 Telephone: (405) 982-5783 [email protected] ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ATTORNEY LIEN CLAIMED VERIFICATION STATE OF OKLAHOMA ) COUNTY OF LOGAN ) SS. I, Kent Bowman, under the penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of Oklahoma, do hereby verify and affirm that the above and foregoing facts asserted in the Petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. [Signature] Kent Bowman, Plaintiff VERIFICATION STATE OF OKLAHOMA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF LOGAN ) I, Benjamin Bowman, under the penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of Oklahoma, do hereby verify and affirm that the above and foregoing facts asserted in the Petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. Benjamin Bowman, Plaintiff eSignature Details Signer ID: 8ECLjqU2HNofGj13TgF3uSML Signed by: Benjamin Bowman Sent to email: [email protected] IP Address: 70.169.194.218 Signed at: Feb 4 2026, 12:13 pm CST Signer ID: 9W8zbMhZ6543kcWLpJcF87ka Signed by: Kent Bowman Sent to email: [email protected] IP Address: 72.214.100.19 Signed at: Feb 4 2026, 12:45 pm CST