CJ-2026-1 - Zachary Mark Peterson v. STK Construction, LLC

What's This Case About?

Let’s be honest: nobody signs up for a brand-new custom-built home expecting it to come with a side of mold, leaks, and a contractor who ghosts them like a bad Tinder date. But that’s exactly what Zachary and Tiffany Peterson got when they trusted STK Construction, LLC to build their dream house at 1507 Hickory Trail in Piedmont, Oklahoma. Fast forward five years, and instead of sipping sweet tea on a porch that closes properly, they’re suing over windows that sweat like a nervous groom, doors that won’t shut, plumbing that clogs more than a high school cafeteria drain, and a warranty that might as well have been written in invisible ink.

So who are these people? The Petersons aren’t flipping houses or playing real estate roulette — they’re regular homeowners who wanted a safe, functional place to live, built to code and not held together by hope and caulk. They’re also the co-trustees of the ZT Peterson Revocable Trust, which sounds fancy but really just means they set up a legal structure to manage their property (probably for estate planning, not because they’re hiding treasure in the backyard). STK Construction, on the other hand, is an Oklahoma-based LLC that allegedly promised to deliver a turnkey home with two warranties: one for a year, and a big-deal 10-year structural warranty. That’s supposed to be the golden ticket — the “don’t worry, we stand by our work” assurance every new homeowner wants. Instead, it became the warranty that never was.

Here’s how the nightmare unfolded. The Petersons signed their contract on January 6, 2021, closed on February 25, and moved in shortly after. By “shortly after,” we mean “before the drywall dust had even settled.” And almost immediately, red flags started popping up like moles in a whack-a-mole game. Windows — plural — began showing condensation, ice on the inside, and yes, mold. Not the cool kind you see in sci-fi movies, but the gross, creeping, health-code-violation kind. The front and back doors? Couldn’t close right. Dirt and air were sneaking in like uninvited guests at a backyard BBQ. And the plumbing? Oh, the plumbing. Clogs. Constant clogs. So many clogs that by December 2025 — four years after move-in — the Petersons had to shell out for a camera inspection just to prove something was seriously wrong underground. Spoiler: it was. The report found faulty and improper installation, meaning the pipes were likely sloped wrong, connected poorly, or just slapped in with a prayer.

Now, you’d think a reputable builder would jump on these issues, especially since the Petersons weren’t shy about complaining. They notified STK before closing about the back door. Then, right after moving in, they started sending written notices about the windows and front door. They kept at it. Photos were sent. Inspections were done. And for years? Radio silence. Or worse — false hope. In July 2023, STK finally said, “Okay, okay, we’ll replace the windows.” A contractor showed up, measured every single one, and told the Petersons the replacements would arrive by August 24. Great! Except… they never came. Why? Because STK never ordered them. Not one. Someone measured the windows like they were shopping for curtains, then forgot to actually buy the curtains. It’s like ordering a pizza, getting the box measured for size, and then just staring at the empty counter.

And what about that 10-year warranty? Remember that? The one promised in the contract? Turns out, STK filled out an application with Residential Warranty Company, LLC — but never paid for it. So the warranty was voided. No coverage. No backup plan. Nothing. The Petersons found out in December 2025, when they finally called the warranty company themselves, like homeowners doing detective work they shouldn’t have to do.

So why are we in court? Because the Petersons aren’t just mad — they’re legally done. They’ve filed four claims, and each one is like a different angle of the same disaster photo. First: Breach of Contract — meaning STK didn’t do what the contract said they’d do (build a decent house and secure that warranty). Second: Breach of Warranty — they failed to honor the existing contractual warranty by ignoring repair requests. Third: Negligence — the work was just plain sloppy, below the standard you’d expect from a licensed builder. And fourth — and this one’s spicy — Nuisance. Yes, in legal terms, a nuisance. Not just an annoyance, but a legal claim for when someone’s actions make your life miserable and unsafe. Mold, leaks, drafts, constant plumbing disasters — the court filing argues this isn’t just bad construction, it’s an ongoing invasion of their peace, comfort, and health.

As for what they want? The petition says “damages in excess of $10,000” — but that’s likely just the floor. That number probably covers some of the plumbing fixes, inspection costs, and maybe a fraction of the window replacements. But let’s be real: $10,000 won’t even cover the full window job in a whole-house replacement, never mind the structural plumbing work, mold remediation, and years of stress. And yet, they’re not asking for punitive damages, or a jury trial, or to shut STK down. They’re not trying to bankrupt the company — they just want their house fixed and to be treated like customers, not afterthoughts.

Our take? The most absurd part isn’t even the moldy windows or the phantom warranty. It’s the audacity of measuring windows for replacement… and then doing nothing. It’s the contractor showing up, taking notes, giving a delivery date — and STK not following through like they forgot they ran a construction company. It’s the fact that the Petersons had to investigate their own warranty like amateur sleuths in a DIY legal drama. And hey, we get it — building homes is hard, supply chains are messy, timelines slip. But when you promise a 10-year warranty and don’t pay for it? That’s not a mistake. That’s a choice. And when you tell people their windows are being replaced, and then ghost them? That’s not negligence. That’s disrespect.

We’re rooting for the Petersons not because they want to ruin a small business, but because they represent every homeowner who’s ever been lied to, brushed off, or made to feel crazy for expecting basic competence. A house isn’t just wood and wires — it’s supposed to be shelter, safety, sanity. And if STK can’t deliver that, maybe they shouldn’t be in the business of building dreams. They’re lucky the Petersons are only suing for damages. Some people might’ve just set the place on fire and called it “structural remediation.”

But hey — we’re entertainers, not lawyers. So we’ll leave the gavel to the court. Just… maybe don’t skip the warranty payment next time, guys. It’s kind of a big deal.

Case Overview

Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Rhonda J. McLean

WHITEFEATHER LAW GROUP, PLLC

Relief Sought

$10,000 Monetary

Plaintiffs

Zachary Mark Peterson individual
Rep: Rhonda J. McLean, OBA No. 30642
Tiffany Kay Peterson individual
Rep: Rhonda J. McLean, OBA No. 30642
ZT Peterson Revocable Trust dated January 14, 2021 trust

Defendants

STK Construction, LLC business

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Breach of Contract	Defendant breached the contract by constructing the home with numerous flaws and defects.
2	Breach of Warranty	Defendant breached the warranty by failing to address the construction defects and damages.
3	Negligence	Defendant negligently constructed the home and failed to properly act on plaintiffs' behalf.
4	Nuisance	Defendant created a nuisance by breaching duties owed to plaintiffs and causing them harm and damage to their home.

Petition Text

1,474 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CANADIAN COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA ZACHARY MARK PETERSON AND ) TIFFANY KAY PETERSON, BOTH ) INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CO-TRUSTEES ) OF THE ZT PETERSON REVOCABLE ) TRUST DATED JANUARY 14, 2021, ) PLAINTIFFS ) v. STK CONSTRUCTION, LLC, DEFENDANT PETITION COME NOW the Plaintiffs, Zachary Mark Peterson and Tiffany Kay Peterson, both individually and as Co-Trustees of the ZT Peterson Revocable Trust dated January 14, 2021, and for their claims against Defendant, STK Construction, LLC, hereby allege and state as follows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Plaintiff Zachary Mark Peterson is a resident of Canadian County and a Co-Trustee of the ZT Peterson Revocable Trust dated January 14, 2021. 2. Plaintiff Tiffany Kay Peterson is a resident of Canadian County and a Co-Trustee of the ZT Peterson Revocable Trust dated January 14, 2021. 3. Plaintiff ZT Peterson Revocable Trust dated January 14, 2021, is an Oklahoma trust and is the current record owner of the Home. 4. Defendant STK Construction, LLC, is an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company, with its principal office located in Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma. 5. The acts complained of herein affect the real property hereinafter described located in Canadian County, State of Oklahoma. 6. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court pursuant to 12 O.S. § 131. BACKGROUND FACTS 7. This dispute arises from a contract between the parties for the purchase of a new construction home located at 1507 Hickory Trail, Piedmont, Canadian County, Oklahoma (hereinafter the “Home” and "Contract"). 8. Plaintiffs Zachary Mark Peterson and Tiffany Kay Peterson entered into a contract with STK Construction, LLC (hereinafter the "Defendant") on January 6, 2021, to purchase the Home built by Defendant. 9. The Contract included a provision wherein the Defendant was to provide documentation of a purchased 1-year warranty and 10-year structural warranty within 5 days of acceptance of the Contract (hereinafter the “Additional Warranty"). 10. Plaintiffs and Defendant closed on the Home on February 25, 2021. 11. Plaintiffs Zachary Mark Peterson and Tiffany Kay Peterson conveyed the Home to Zachary Mark Peterson and Tiffany Kay Peterson, as Co-Trustees of the ZT Peterson Revocable Trust dated January 14, 2021, on April 23, 2021, but effective as of February 25, 2021. 12. At all relevant times hereto, Plaintiff Zachary Mark Peterson and Tiffany Kay Peterson, individually or as Co-Trustees of the ZT Peterson Revocable Trust dated January 14, 2021, have owned the Home. 13. During the construction of the Home, numerous errors, defects and omissions were committed by Defendant. 14. Upon purchasing the Home and moving into the same, it became apparent that there were numerous problems, including but not limited to, faulty and/or improperly installed windows and doors, and faulty and/or improperly installed plumbing and sewer lines. 15. Upon information and belief, Defendant installed windows that are not energy star rated to be used in the state of Oklahoma. 16. All windows in the Home have had issues with moisture, condensation, ice on the inside of the window, mold, and excessive air and dirt passing through the windows into the Home. 17. The front and back doors of the home were improperly installed creating issues with the doors not properly closing, dirt, and moisture. 18. The Contract between the Parties included a warranty provision (hereinafter "Contractual Warranty"). 19. Plaintiffs notified Defendant about the improperly installed back door prior to closing on the Home as noted in the Notice of TRR. 20. Plaintiffs notified Defendant in writing almost immediately after moving into the Home of the issues with the windows and front door. 21. Plaintiffs have continued to notify Defendant in writing about defects with the windows and doors. 22. Despite numerous notifications, photos, and inspections, Defendant has failed to remedy the issues or replace the windows and doors in the Home. 23. On or about the beginning of July 2023, Defendant informed Plaintiffs that the windows would be replaced and a contractor was sent to the Home on July 14, 2023, to measure all of the windows in the Home for replacement windows. 24. The contractor measured the windows on July 14, 2023, and informed the Plaintiffs that the replacement windows should arrive by August 24, 2023. 25. On August 21, 2023, Plaintiffs were notified by a third party that they needed to set up a time to measure for replacement windows. 26. Upon contacting the Defendant and the contractor, Plaintiffs were informed that the windows were never ordered after being measured on July 14, 2023. 27. Plaintiffs have encountered numerous issues with the plumbing and sewer lines, including, but not limited to, repeated clogs and improper draining, resulting in Plaintiffs needing to hire a plumber multiple times. 28. Due to the number of times Plaintiffs have had to hire a plumber to unclog the drains, on or about December 2025, Plaintiffs paid for the plumbing and sewer lines to be inspected with a camera which identified numerous problems with the plumbing and sewer lines as a result of faulty or improper installation. 29. Plaintiffs received a copy of Application No. 3831845 for a warranty with Residential Warranty Company, LLC (hereinafter “RWC”) for the Additional Warranty but Plaintiffs never received a copy of the Additional Warranty. 30. Upon contacting RWC in December 2025, Plaintiffs were informed that Application No. 3831845 was voided for non-payment and that no Additional Warranty had been issued. 31. Defendant’s repeated failure and refusal to correct the problems with the windows, doors, and plumbing and sewer lines, and failure to provide an Additional Warranty has caused Plaintiffs to suffer damages. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION – BREACH OF CONTRACT 32. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the foregoing Paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 33. Plaintiffs entered into a contract with Defendant for the purpose of purchasing the Home built by Defendant. 34. Defendant breached the Contract by constructing the Home with numerous flaws and defects in violation of the ordinary standard of care and by failing to purchase the Additional Warranty. 35. Plaintiffs have suffered damages in excess of $10,000.00 as a direct result of Defendant’s breach of Contract. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION – BREACH OF WARRANTY 36. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the foregoing Paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 37. Defendant breached the Contractual Warranty by failing and refusing to address the construction defects and the damages caused thereby. 38. Plaintiffs have suffered damages in excess of $10,000.00 as a direct result of Defendant’s breach of warranty. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION - NEGLIGENCE 39. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the foregoing Paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 40. Defendant has a duty to provide a Home to Plaintiffs in a reasonable and workmanlike manner according to the terms of the parties’ agreement. 41. Defendant failed to satisfactorily perform their contractual promises and negligently constructed the Home and negligently failed to properly act on Plaintiffs’ behalf. 42. Plaintiffs have suffered damages in excess of $10,000.00 as a result of Defendant’s negligence. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION - NUISANCE 43. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the foregoing Paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 44. Defendant owed a duty to Plaintiffs to use good workmanship to construct their home. 45. Defendant had an obligation to comply with relevant building codes and Oklahoma statutes, as well as a duty of ordinary care to Plaintiffs. 46. By failing to provide Plaintiffs with the contracted Home free of defects and further refusing to modify the defects upon notice, Defendant breached their duty to Plaintiffs. 47. By failing to purchase the Additional Warranty pursuant to the Contract, Defendant breached their duty to Plaintiffs. 48. Although Plaintiffs provided notice of the defects to Defendant timely, Defendant failed to remedy the problems and continues to ignore Plaintiffs' demands and take no meaningful steps to remedy the damages to the Home. 49. Defendant created a nuisance that annoyed, injured, and endangered the comfort, health, and safety of Plaintiffs by breaching duties owed to Plaintiffs pursuant to contract and warranty. 50. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover their actual damages to abate the nuisance created by Defendant, damages for their personal harm, inconvenience and annoyance incident to the creation of a nuisance by Defendant. DEMAND FOR RELIEF 51. Plaintiffs have suffered monetary loss, inconvenience, annoyance, frustration, and unacceptable nuisance as a direct result of the actions of Defendant. Further, Plaintiffs have suffered economic damages from the incurrence of legal fees and court costs. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter judgment in their favor against the Defendants for actual damages, attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses, and for all other relief that the Court deems just and proper. DATED this 2nd day of January, 2026. Respectfully submitted, Rhonda J. McLean, OBA No. 30642 WHITEFEATHER LAW GROUP, PLLC 10924 N.W. Expressway Yukon, Oklahoma 73099 Telephone: (405) 470-0682 [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiffs VERIFICATION STATE OF OKLAHOMA ) COUNTY OF CANADIAN ) The undersigned, Zachary M. Peterson and Tiffany K. Peterson, individually and as Co-Trustees of the ZT Peterson Revocable Trust dated January 14, 2021, being first duly sworn upon oath, state: We have read the foregoing Petition. The facts contained therein are true and correct to the best of our knowledge and belief. __________________________ Zachary M. Peterson, Individually and As Co-Trustee of the ZT Peterson Revocable Trust dated January 14, 2021 __________________________ Tiffany K. Peterson, Individually and As Co-Trustee of the ZT Peterson Revocable Trust dated January 14, 2021 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, in said County and State, on this 2nd day of January, 2026. __________________________ Brittany Shaw Notary Public My Commission Expires: