CJ-2026-2587 - Judy H. Garrett v. Epic Wealth Management, LLC

What's This Case About?

Let’s talk about the time a financial advisor allegedly lied to an 83-year-old widow for four years, forged a fake insurance letter, and then claimed her client cashed out a $1.8 million life insurance policy — a policy she never cashed out, and that had actually lapsed because the advisor did nothing when it was about to die. Oh, and she knew. That’s not a plot twist in a Lifetime movie. That’s what happened to Judy H. Garrett of Norman, Oklahoma — and it’s all spelled out in a lawsuit that reads like a financial thriller with the volume turned up to eleven.

Judy Garrett wasn’t some high-rolling Wall Street player. She was a retired schoolteacher who spent her life quietly raising a family with her husband, Don, for 63 years — a marriage that ended when Don passed away in March 2024. Together, they’d built a modest but secure life, and somewhere in the middle of it all, they met Valery Oswald. At first, she was just their financial advisor at Merrill Lynch back in 1999. Then she switched firms. Then again. Then again. But one thing stayed constant: Judy and Don kept following her, portfolio in tow, for over two decades. That kind of loyalty isn’t just rare — it’s the kind of trust you usually only see in sitcoms where someone says, “I’ve known that guy since high school!” and then gets scammed anyway. And maybe that’s the warning sign no one saw: when someone’s been your financial advisor longer than your kids have had smartphones, maybe it’s time to ask a few more questions.

Back in 1999, Oswald sold Judy a flexible premium variable life insurance policy through John Hancock — a fancy way of saying it’s an investment-linked insurance policy that’s supposed to grow over time and pay out a big chunk of change when you die. Judy paid $279,999 in premiums — a massive sum, especially for a retired teacher — and was told by Oswald that this policy would “pay for itself” and that she’d “never have to pay another premium.” That’s a big promise. And it was, allegedly, a big lie. Because life insurance policies like this one don’t magically sustain themselves forever. They depend on market performance, fees, and yes — sometimes, more money. But Judy wasn’t told any of that. She was told: You’re done. It’s taken care of. So she believed her advisor. Because why wouldn’t she? This was the same woman who’d managed their money for 20 years. The same woman who got promoted, changed companies, and still called every quarter with a reassuring voice and a smile.

Fast forward to 2020. The policy stopped paying for itself. Markets dipped, fees piled up, and the cash value couldn’t cover the monthly deductions. On August 6, 2020, John Hancock sent a lapse notice — two of them, actually, one to Judy and one to Oswald. Judy’s late husband, Don, saw it and did exactly what any responsible person would do: he forwarded it to Valery Oswald and asked, “Hey, is this policy still good?” Crickets. No call. No email. No “Hey, you need to pay more.” Nothing. And because Judy was under the impression she’d already paid in full — thanks to Oswald’s original pitch — she didn’t panic. She didn’t act. And so, on August 6, 2020, the policy lapsed. Quietly. Without her knowledge. Without her consent. Just… gone.

But here’s where it gets weird. In early 2021, Judy’s estate attorney, Jennifer Wright, started updating her will. Part of that process was confirming the life insurance policy’s details — who the beneficiaries were, how much it was worth, all the usual stuff. She reached out to Oswald multiple times. April, September, October. No real answers. Then, on October 21, 2021, boom — Oswald sends a letter she claims is from John Hancock. It says the policy is active, lists the correct policy number, the death benefit, the owner — everything looks legit. Except it’s a forgery. It didn’t come from John Hancock. It came from Valery Oswald, who apparently moonlights as a document forger when the market’s slow.

So Judy goes on believing the policy is intact. She writes a sweet, heartfelt letter to her kids and grandkids in February 2021, telling them she’s set them up with a tax-free inheritance. She talks about her father’s $250,000 tax-free gift and how she reinvested it — a quiet, proud moment of generational planning. She has no idea it’s all built on a lie.

This charade continues for three more years. Three years of Judy thinking she’s leaving her family nearly $1.9 million. Three years of Oswald sitting on the truth. Then, in May 2024 — after Don’s death, during a routine check-in — the estate attorney calls Oswald again. This time, the story changes. “Oh,” says Oswald, “Judy cashed out the policy in late 2020.” What? No, she didn’t. “Yes,” says Oswald, “she got about $200,000 and used it to pay off the mortgage.” Also not true. Judy’s son, Bryan, calls next. Same story. “She signed all the paperwork,” says Oswald. “I’ll send it to you.” She never does. Because it doesn’t exist. The policy didn’t pay out. It lapsed. And now, Judy — an 83-year-old woman grieving her husband of 63 years — learns that the legacy she thought she was leaving behind? Gone. Vapor. A mirage.

So why are they in court? Legally, Judy’s suing for a lot of things, but the core is this: you don’t get to be someone’s financial advisor for 20 years and then let them lose $1.8 million without telling them. The lawsuit claims breach of fiduciary duty — which, in plain English, means “you were supposed to have my back, and you didn’t.” It’s not just about bad advice; it’s about lying, hiding, and forging documents. Then there’s negligence — failing to monitor the policy, failing to warn her, failing to do the bare minimum of what any halfway decent advisor would do. Fraud, specifically against Oswald, because she intentionally lied — about the policy paying itself, about the forged letter, about the fake cash-out. Constructive fraud covers the idea that even if she didn’t mean to deceive, her total failure to act was so reckless it became deceit. And then there’s the Oklahoma Uniform Securities Act — basically, the state’s version of “don’t scam people with financial products.” And finally, respondeat superior, which means the company — Epic Wealth Management — can’t just hide behind their employee. If your advisor screws up on the job, you’re on the hook.

Judy is asking for $1,883,594 — the full value of the death benefit she lost. Is that a lot? For most people, yes. But in this case, it’s not even the full picture. That $1.8 million wasn’t just money — it was peace of mind. It was a promise to her grandchildren. It was the difference between “I did everything I could” and “I failed.” And while $1.8 million might sound like a windfall, in the context of a lost inheritance that was supposed to last generations, it’s not excessive. It’s the bare minimum of what she’s owed.

Our take? The most absurd part isn’t even the forgery — though, wow, the forgery. It’s that this allegedly went on for four years. Four years of Judy thinking she’s secured her family’s future, while her advisor sits on multiple red flags, ignores lapse notices, fabricates documents, and then invents a fake payout story like she’s improvising in a bad play. And Epic Wealth? Where were they? How does a registered investment advisory firm not catch that one of their reps is forging letters from insurance companies? Either they’re negligent, or they’re willfully blind. Either way, they’re on the hook.

We’re rooting for Judy. Not just because she’s 83 and lost her husband and her life savings in one gut punch, but because this case is a warning to anyone who’s ever trusted someone with their money. Fiduciary duty isn’t just a legal term — it’s a moral one. And when someone breaks that trust, especially with this level of audacity, they shouldn’t get to walk away with a slap on the wrist. If the allegations are true — and we’re not saying they are, we’re entertainers, not lawyers — then this isn’t just a lawsuit. It’s a betrayal dressed in financial jargon. And Judy Garrett? She’s not just suing for money. She’s suing for the truth.

Case Overview

$1,883,594 Demand Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Monty L. Cain

CAIN LAW OFFICE

Relief Sought

$1,883,594 Monetary

Plaintiffs

Judy H. Garrett individual
Rep: Monty L. Cain, OBA #15891

Defendants

Epic Wealth Management, LLC business
Valery Oswald individual

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Breach of Fiduciary Duty	Against All Defendants
2	Negligence	Against All Defendants
3	Fraud	Against Defendant Valery Oswald
4	Constructive Fraud	Against All Defendants
5	Violations of the Oklahoma Uniform Securities Act of 2004	Against All Defendants
6	Respondeat Superior	Against Defendant Epic Wealth

Petition Text

2,733 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA JUDY H. GARRETT, v. EPIC WEALTH MANAGEMENT, LLC, & VALERY OSWALD, Plaintiff, Defendants. Case No: CJ- 2026 - 2587 PETITION Plaintiff, Judy H. Garrett ("Ms. Garrett" or "Plaintiff"), based on her knowledge and upon the investigation of her counsel, for the causes of action against Epic Wealth Management LLC ("Epic Wealth") and Valery Oswald ("Oswald") (together, "Defendants") alleges as follows: SUMMARY 1. Judy Garrett and her late husband, Don Garrett, trusted Valery Oswald and Epic Wealth with their financial well-being, relying on their promises of diligent and professional management of their life savings. That trust was gravely misplaced. At a time in Ms. Garrett’s life when stability and security should have been assured, Oswald’s egregious misconduct and blatant breach of fiduciary duty left her blindsided by the loss of a life insurance policy worth nearly $2 million—a policy Oswald deceitfully claimed was still in force. Through reckless actions and deceit, Oswald not only abandoned her professional obligations but also fabricated false documents to cover up her misconduct, causing devastating financial and emotional harm to Ms. Garrett and her family. PARTIES 2. Plaintiff Judy H. Garrett is an individual domiciled in Cleveland County, Oklahoma. 3. Defendant Epic Wealth is a limited liability company with a principal place of business at 6301 Waterford Boulevard, Suite 102A, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73118. 4. Defendant Valery Oswald is an individual domiciled in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they reside in Oklahoma County and have their principal place of business in Oklahoma County. 6. This Court has general jurisdiction over this case as a civil matter within the state. 7. Venue is proper in the County of Oklahoma because Defendants reside in Oklahoma County and have their principal place of business in Oklahoma County. 8. This action was originally filed in this Court on April 14, 2025, under case number CJ-2025-2522 and was dismissed without prejudice on April 24, 2025. 9. Plaintiff filed a Demand for Arbitration against Defendants before the American Arbitration Association on October 18, 2024, pursuant to an investment advisory agreement with a pre-dispute arbitration clause between the parties. 10. In Defendants' Answer to Claimant's Demand for Arbitration filed January 31, 2025, Respondent asserts the affirmative defense that "Claimant's claims are barred because the [Investment Advisory Agreement between the Claimant and Defendants] does not provide authority for [Claimant's] claims to be adjudicated in this forum." Defendants' Affirmative Defenses contained in their Answer filed January 31, 2025, have not been amended or withdrawn. 11. Based on Defendants' asserted affirmative defense that this dispute is not subject to arbitration under the parties' Investment Advisory Agreement, and for that reason alone, Claimant voluntarily dismissed her Demand for Arbitration without prejudice to file this civil action in in this Court. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL CLAIMS 12. Plaintiff Judy H. Garrett is 83 years old and is a long-time resident of Norman, Oklahoma. She was a teacher before she retired to stay at home with her children. Ms. Garrett was married to her husband, Don, for 63 years. He passed away in March of 2024. 13. Defendant Epic Wealth is a SEC-registered investment adviser. 14. Defendant Valery Oswald is an investment adviser representative that has been registered with Epic Wealth since 2018. 15. Oswald had been the Garretts' trusted fiduciary investment adviser representative for over twenty years, guiding them through every step of their finances. Currently with Epic Wealth, Oswald has transitioned between firms four times during this period, always bringing the Garretts' portfolio with her. Through these changes, the Garretts have consistently relied on Oswald's claimed expertise and experience to properly manage their investments, placing their full trust in her financial guidance. 16. While Oswald was registered with Merrill Lynch in 1999, she sold Ms. Garrett a Flexible Premium Variable Life Insurance Policy, issued by John Hancock Life Insurance Company (formerly known as Manulife Financial) ("the Life Insurance Policy"). Ms. Garrett paid $279,999 in premiums at the end of 1999, and Oswald told her that was all the premiums she would ever have to pay. The face amount of the policy was $1,883,594. 17. Throughout the of the policy, Oswald was the financial advisor of record, and Oswald selected the sub-account allocations of the policy. As the investments within a variable life insurance policy grow or decline, the cash value increases or decreases accordingly. The cash value can be used for various purposes, such as taking loans, withdrawals, and paying the policy's costs. Oswald told Ms. Garrett that the Life Insurance Policy would pay for itself. Ms. Garrett was never advised that the Life Insurance Policy could lapse due to "lack of funds," and she never would have agreed to purchase it if she was told. 18. The Life Insurance Policy paid for itself through 2020, and Ms. Garrett was never asked to, nor did, contribute any additional premiums. 19. In August 2020, the Life Insurance Policy was no longer able to pay its own insurance deductions, and the policy was going to lapse. 20. Lapse notices were sent to Ms. Garrett and Oswald on August 6, 2020, and October 15, 2020. On August 20, 2020, upon receiving the lapse notice, Ms. Garrett's late husband forwarded the notice to Oswald asking if the Life Insurance Policy was paid up. 21. Ms. Garrett does not have a copy of any response from Oswald, nor was she told by Oswald or anyone that the Life Insurance Policy was going to lapse. Since Ms. Garrett was told by Oswald that no premiums would ever have to be paid out of pocket, and since Oswald never advised Ms. Garrett that payments would need to be made in 2020 (or at anytime) in order to avoid the policy lapsing, no additional premiums were paid. As a result, and completely unbeknownst to the Garretts, the policy lapsed on August 6, 2020. 22. In early 2021, Jennifer Wright (Ms. Garrett's estate attorney) began to update Ms. Garrett's estate. This update included the allocation of the Life Insurance Policy to her kids and her grandkids. In February 2021, Ms. Garrett wrote a letter to her family about the Life Insurance Policy, why she took it out, and what she intended to do with it. in my attempt to do some estate planning and shelter as much money as I could from inheritance taxes, i purchased a life insurance policy in 1999 which will pass to my children and grandchildren tax free at my death. when my father died, I received $250,000 from his estate and it was tax free. I spent none of it and reinvested it in this insurance policy. all three of you have been the most precious part of my life and well as the one dozen grandchildren.....I smile when I see the kind of adults and parents you have become. You validate everything that I believe is important in life. so, continue to celebrate all that is good in life, and know how much I loved all of you and your precious families. 23. During this Estate update in early 2021, Ms. Wright needed information from Oswald, including information about the Life Insurance Policy and the payout. Ms. Wright communicated with Oswald in early April 2021, requesting information on the Life Insurance Policy beneficiaries. On April 6, 2021, Oswald emailed Ms. Wright stating she was waiting to get correspondence back from John Hancock verifying the beneficiaries. 24. On September 10, 2021, having not received the requested information from Oswald, Ms. Wright emailed Oswald again asking for the beneficiary info on the Life Insurance Policy. Oswald said she would check. On October 7, 2021, Ms. Wright emailed Oswald again asking for the same information. 25. On October 21, 2021, Oswald sent Ms. Wright the following letter, purported to be from John Hancock, dated October 18, 2021. Unbeknownst at the time, the letter is a forgery and did not come from John Hancock, but it did represent that Life Insurance Policy was in effect, with the proper references to the policy number, the insured, the owner, the type of policy and the death benefit. John Hancock Can’t figure out how to copy the letter directly 26. The next few years carried on uneventfully, with Ms. Garrett having been led to believe by Oswald that the Life Insurance Policy was still in force. Her husband, Don, passed away in March of 2024. 27. Housekeeping tasks following Don's death led Ms. Wright to call Oswald to check in on the status of Don's investment accounts. During a phone call on May 23, 2024, Ms. Wright was told by Oswald that the Life Insurance Policy was cashed out by Ms. Garrett in late 2020. Ms. Wright passed that information onto Ms. Garrett, who was shocked she surely did not cash out the Life Insurance Policy. 28. Following that news, Bryan Garrett, Ms. Garrett's son, had an additional call with Oswald on June 25, 2024, about the Life Insurance Policy. He too was told by Oswald that Ms. Garrett cashed out the policy in late 2020. Oswald doubled down and said that Ms. Garrett received approximately $200,000 from the Life Insurance Policy and that the funds were used to pay off their mortgage and that Ms. Garrett signed all the papers regarding the Life Insurance Policy cash out. Oswald told Mr. Garrett that she would look for that paperwork and send it to him. She never did because such paperwork does not exist. 29. As a result of the misconduct of Oswald and Epic Wealth Management LLC, Ms. Garrett has lost the Life Insurance Policy and the death benefit of $1,883,594 will not be paid upon her death. COUNT ONE BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY Against All Defendants 29. Plaintiff incorporates the above allegations by reference as if fully realleged here. 30. Defendants are subject to the duties of all investment advisers and investment adviser representatives. All investment advisors and investment advisor representatives, including the Defendants, owe their clients a fiduciary duty. 31. Investment advisers owe a wide range of fiduciary duties to their customers. It is well-settled that the fiduciary responsibilities of an investment adviser include (among other things) the duty to give honest and complete information. See Gochnauer v. A. G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 810 F.2d 1042, 1049-1050 (11th Cir. 1987); Lieb v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Garrett, Inc., 461 F. supp. 951, 953 (E.D. Mich. 1978). This duty is coextensive with Oklahoma's Uniform Securities Act of broad proscription against any act, practice, or conduct of business that is deceptive or manipulative, which reflects the legislature's recognition of the trust and confidence underlying the investment adviser's relationship with his client. 32. As Ms. Garrett's investment adviser, Oswald and Epic Wealth owed a fiduciary duty to act in Ms. Garrett's best interest at all times. 33. This duty included providing honest, clear, and accurate information regarding the status of her investments, including the life insurance policy issued by John Hancock. Oswald's fiduciary obligations encompassed not only the initial recommendation and sale of the Life Insurance Policy in 1999 but also, among other things, the ongoing responsibility to monitor and communicate the policy's status. 34. Oswald and Epic Wealth breached this duty in numerous ways. Oswald misrepresented the nature of the life insurance policy by assuring Ms. Garrett that it would remain self-sustaining and that no further premiums would ever be required. 35. When the policy was at risk of lapsing in 2020 due to insufficient funds, Oswald failed to inform Ms. Garrett, despite receiving lapse notices. Instead of advising her client of the urgent need for additional premiums, Oswald allowed the policy to lapse without adequate warning, leaving Ms. Garrett unaware of the dire situation. 36. Then, in 2021, when Ms. Garrett and her estate attorney sought information regarding the policy's beneficiaries and payout, Oswald perpetuated the breach by fabricating a letter from John Hancock, falsely leading Ms. Garrett to believe the policy remained in force. This deceit continued into 2024, when Oswald falsely claimed that Ms. Garrett had cashed out the policy in late 2020, a statement that was not only untrue but accompanied by further fabricated explanations regarding the supposed use of the funds. 37. By failing to act in Ms. Garrett's best interests, withholding material information, and engaging in fraudulent conduct, Oswald and Epic Wealth have breached their fiduciary duties. These actions have caused significant financial harm and emotional distress to Ms. Garrett, for which they are liable. COUNT TWO NEGLIGENCE Against All Defendants 38. Plaintiff incorporates the above allegations by reference as if fully realleged here. 39. Valery Oswald and Epic Wealth owed Ms. Garrett a duty of care to provide investment advisory services in a manner consistent with the standards of the industry. This included the responsibility to monitor the performance and status of the investments under their care and to communicate any material changes or risks to Ms. Garrett promptly and accurately. 40. Defendants' actions fell far below the standard of care in the industry, and as such, Defendants are liable to Claimant for their negligence. COUNT THREE FRAUD Against Defendant Valery Oswald 41. Plaintiff incorporates the above allegations by reference as if fully realleged here. 42. Fraud is "the intentional misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact, with an intent to deceive, which substantially affects another person" Horton v. Hamilton, 2015 OK 6, ¶ 18, 345 P.3d 357, 363. 43. Oswald committed actual fraud by intentionally misrepresenting and concealing material facts concerning Ms. Garrett's life insurance policy. Specifically, Oswald assured Ms. Garrett that the life insurance policy was self-sustaining and would never require additional premium payments. This statement was false, as evidenced by the policy's eventual lapse due to insufficient funds in 2020. Despite receiving lapse notices, Oswald failed to inform Ms. Garrett of the policy's impending failure, concealing this material fact with the intent to deceive her into believing the policy remained secure. 44. Oswald engaged in further fraudulent conduct in 2021 when she fabricated a letter from John Hancock, leading Ms. Garrett and her estate attorney to believe the life insurance policy was still in force. Oswald's deception continued into 2024, when she falsely claimed that Ms. Garrett had cashed out the policy in 2020, again misrepresenting material facts with the intent to mislead. 45. These intentional misrepresentations and concealments substantially damaged Ms. Garrett. Accordingly, Oswald is liable for actual fraud. COUNT FOUR CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD Against All Defendants 46. Plaintiff incorporates the above allegations by reference as if fully realleged here. 47. Constructive fraud is "a breach of a legal duty or equitable duty to the detriment of another, which does not necessarily involve any moral guilt, intent to deceive or actual dishonesty of purpose." Croslin v. Enerlex, Inc., 2013 OK 34, ¶ 12, 308 P.3d 1041, 1046. 48. As Ms. Garrett's investment adviser, Epic Wealth had a duty to act in her best interests and oversee the conduct of its representatives. 49. As Ms. Garrett's investment adviser representative, Oswald had a duty to act in her best interests. 50. Oswald and Epic Wealth failed in these duties. By neglecting its fiduciary responsibilities and failing to supervise its representative's actions, Oswald and Epic Wealth breached their duty of care, causing significant financial harm to Ms. Garrett. These failures constitute constructive fraud, as they represent a breach of legal obligations that resulted in Ms. Garrett's loss. Accordingly, Epic Wealth and Oswald are liable for constructive fraud. COUNT FIVE VIOLATIONS OF THE OKLAHOMA UNIFORM SECURITIES ACT OF 2004 Against All Defendants 51. Plaintiff incorporates the above allegations by reference as if fully realleged here. 52. Defendants employed a device, scheme, or artifice to defraud another person in violation of Okla. Stat. Tit. 71, 1-502(A)(l). 53. Defendants made untrue statements of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statement made, in the light of the circumstances under which it is made, not misleading in violation of Okla. Stat. Tit. 71, 1-502(A)(2). 54. Defendants engaged in an act, practice, or course of business that operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon another person in violation of Okla. Stat. Tit. 71, 1 - 55. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' violations, Defendants are jointly and severally liable under Oklahoma law. Okla. Stat. Tit, 71, 1-509. COUNT SIX RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR Against Defendant Epic Wealth 56. Epic Wealth's dealings with Plaintiff were conducted mainly by its representative, Oswald. 57. Oswald's conduct was in furtherance of Epic Wealth's business. 58. Therefore, Epic Wealth is liable for any misconduct and breaches of duty under the common law doctrine of respondeat superior. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in her favor and against Defendants for Economic damages equal to the loss of the death benefit from the Life Insurance Policy, which is no less than the present value of the death benefit of $1,883,594; Additional economic and noneconomic compensatory damages; Disgorgement of advisory fees; Attorneys' fees; costs, and expenses, and for all other relief this Court deems proper. Respectfully Submitted, CAIN LAW OFFICE Attorney for Plaintiff Monty L. Cain, OBA #15891 Anthony M. Alfonso, OBA #32722 P.O. Box 892098 Oklahoma City, OK 73189 (405) 759-7400 – Phone (405) 759-7424 – Facsimile [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiff