CJ-2026-3202 - ADEDYOYIN ABOIYE, individually, and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Adeolu Abioye v. GOODLEAP, LLC, ARIZONA SOLAR SOLUTIONS, INC., d/b/a SUNTRIA, and LEGATUS COMPANY LLC, d/b/a CUSTOM PRO ROOFING & SOLAR

What's This Case About?

Imagine signing up for a solar panel system that promises to slash your electric bill and save you tens of thousands of dollars—only to realize, too late, that you’ve been handed a $52,000 loan for a rooftop setup that’s doing absolutely nothing. That’s not a nightmare. That’s what actually happened to Adedoyin Aboiye and her late husband in Oklahoma City, thanks to what their lawsuit describes as a slick, high-tech door-to-door solar scam wrapped in false promises, ghosted texts, and a paper trail that materialized weeks too late.

Meet the Aboiyes: a couple trying to do the right thing—cut energy costs, go green, maybe even make a little money from excess solar power. Enter Jordan Grill (yes, that’s really his name), a door-to-door sales rep for Suntria, a solar company that, according to the lawsuit, rolls up to homes like a traveling carnival of clean energy dreams. On April 18, 2023, Grill pitched them a deal so sweet it sounds like it was written by a used car salesman with a PowerPoint: a solar system costing about $22,000, financed at a cozy 2% interest, with monthly payments around $120. Oh, and by the way, they’d get a government rebate of nearly $20,000—basically paying for most of the system themselves. Who wouldn’t sign up?

So they did. Right there, on the spot, on a laptop screen, with digital signatures flying like confetti. But here’s the kicker: they weren’t given a copy of the contract. Not then. Not for weeks. And when the paperwork finally arrived on May 13—over three weeks later—the numbers looked like a different language. Suddenly, the loan wasn’t $22,000. It was $52,139.74. The interest rate? Not 2%. Try 4.49%. And that “monthly payment” of $120? Nowhere in sight. Instead, they were staring at a 25-year debt they never agreed to, backed by a company called GoodLeap, which specializes in financing solar systems across the country—and apparently, in making life-altering financial decisions for people who never saw the fine print.

Now, Oklahoma law is pretty clear: if you’re selling something door-to-door, you’ve got to give the buyer a copy of the contract at the time of signing. You also have to tell them they can cancel within three business days. This is called the “cooling-off period,” designed for moments exactly like this—when a salesperson whips out an iPad, talks fast, and leaves a family with a decision they can’t undo. But according to the petition, none of that happened. No contract copy. No cancellation notice. Just a promise, a few taps on a screen, and a $52,000 anchor dropped on their financial future.

The Aboiyes weren’t stupid. They smelled something off. So in July, Adedoyin texted Jordan Grill: Hey, this doesn’t match what you told us. And here’s where it gets even wilder—Grill agreed. His response? “It was the wrong financing. We are canceling it out and covering the cost. I’m making sure you guys get taken care of.” That’s not a denial. That’s a confession. But instead of fixing it, the company ghosted them. Calls unanswered. Texts ignored. And then—like a scene from a low-budget horror movie—the solar panels showed up anyway. Installed. On their roof. Despite multiple refusals. Despite the fact that the Aboiyes had clearly disputed the terms. Despite the fact that the system was never even connected to the grid. It just… sat there. A $52,000 paperweight soaking up Oklahoma sunshine and doing exactly nothing.

To add insult to injury, GoodLeap—this nationwide financing machine—started sending bills. Demands for payment on a loan tied to a system that doesn’t work, never worked, and was never supposed to cost that much in the first place. And then, in November 2023, Adedoyin’s husband, Adeolu, passed away. Now, she’s not just fighting a shady solar company. She’s doing it as the special administrator of his estate, grieving while being hounded by collection notices for a debt she never approved and a product that delivered zero value.

So why are they in court? Legally, it’s a buffet of consumer protection claims. The lawsuit accuses Suntria, Custom Pro Roofing & Solar (the installer), and GoodLeap (the lender) of breach of contract, fraud, and violating just about every consumer law Oklahoma has—like the Consumer Protection Act, the Consumer Credit Code, and the Uniform Commercial Code. In plain English: they lied, they tricked, they didn’t follow the rules, and now they’re trying to collect on a debt that shouldn’t exist. The Aboiyes aren’t just asking to be let out of the contract—they’re demanding damages for financial harm, emotional distress, and the sheer absurdity of being stuck with a useless solar system and a mountain of debt.

How much are they asking for? The filing doesn’t specify a dollar amount, but given the $52,000 loan, years of harassment, and the emotional toll—including losing a spouse in the middle of it all—it’s safe to say they’re not looking for chump change. And honestly? $52,000 is a lot for a solar system that doesn’t work. For context, a fully installed, high-quality 10-kilowatt solar system in Oklahoma averages around $28,000 after federal tax credits. Even before credits, we’re talking mid-$30s. This was more than double what should’ve been on the table—and even that assumes the system was functional, which it wasn’t. So not only did they overcharge, they delivered nothing. It’s like paying for a Tesla and getting a cardboard cutout.

Here’s the most absurd part: this wasn’t some rogue salesperson acting alone. The lawsuit alleges a symbiotic relationship between the companies—Suntria selling, Custom Pro installing, GoodLeap financing—all running on the same script, the same electronic sales tools, the same playbook of fast-talking, document-hiding, and pressure-selling. GoodLeap, despite being the lender, allegedly had control over how these sales were presented. They weren’t some passive bank in the background—they were in the engine room, fueling a system designed to exploit the very people it claims to help.

And let’s talk about that name: GoodLeap. What a marketing triumph. It sounds like a yoga studio or a meditation app. Instead, it’s a financial entity locking people into 25-year loans for solar systems that never go live. The irony is so thick you could slice it.

Our take? We’re rooting for Adedoyin. Not just because she’s grieving, or because she got played by a guy named Jordan Grill (which, again, sounds made up), but because this case shines a light on a growing trend: high-pressure, tech-enabled sales tactics that prey on ordinary people trying to make smart, eco-conscious choices. These aren’t criminals in alleyways. They’re professionals with laptops, corporate logos, and a veneer of legitimacy. They use iPads like magic wands to make contracts appear, disappear, and reappear with different numbers. And when you question it? They vanish.

This lawsuit isn’t just about $52,000. It’s about accountability. It’s about whether a company can slap solar panels on your roof against your will and then bill you for it. It’s about whether a promise made in a living room should mean something. And it’s about whether “going green” should come with a side of financial ruin.

So yeah. We’re watching. And we’re hoping the court tells GoodLeap to take a long, hard leap—right out the door.

Case Overview

Jury Trial Petition

Jurisdiction

DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA

Filing Attorney

Minal Gahlot

Oklahoma Consumer Law Firm

Relief Sought

Plaintiffs

ADEDYOYIN ABOIYE, individually, and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Adeolu Abioye individual|business|government
Rep: Minal Gahlot, Oklahoma Consumer Law Firm

Defendants

GOODLEAP, LLC, ARIZONA SOLAR SOLUTIONS, INC., d/b/a SUNTRIA, and LEGATUS COMPANY LLC, d/b/a CUSTOM PRO ROOFING & SOLAR business

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Breach of Contract, revocation/recission, Fraud/Fraud in the Inducement, Violation of the Oklahoma Consumer Credit Code, Violation of Oklahoma’s Uniform Commercial Code, Violation of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act	alleging Defendants engaged in deceptive and fraudulent sales practices, inducing Plaintiffs into contracts they never understood the terms of, burdened with an overpriced and underperforming solar system, subjected to wrongful demands for payment, and deprived of the promised energy savings

Petition Text

1,727 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA ADEDYOYIN ABOIYE, INDIVIDUALLY, and ADEDYOYIN ABOIYE, AS SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF ADEOLU ABIOYE Plaintiffs, v. GOODLEAP, LLC, ARIZONA SOLAR SOLUTIONS, INC., d/b/a SUNTRIA, and LEGATUS COMPANY LLC, d/b/a CUSTOM PRO ROOFING & SOLAR Defendants. CASE NO.: CJ-2026- The Honorable Judge PETITION COMES NOW the Plaintiffs, Adedoyin Aboiye ("Ms. Aboiye"), individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Adeolu Abioye (Plaintiffs) by and through her counsel of record, Minal Gahlot of Oklahoma Consumer Law Firm, and for their Petition states as follows: PARTIES 1. Defendants are in the business of soliciting consumers for the purchase of solar panels, financing such purchases, and installing solar panels on consumers’ homes. Defendants’ sales agents solicit consumers at their homes to enter 25-year loans and other contracts using electronic devices such as an iPad or laptop. 2. Applicable law requires that Defendants provide consumers with a copy of the contract documents at the time of signing. The law also affords consumers the right to cancel the contract within three business days of receiving the contract. 3. Defendant Arizona Solar Solutions, Inc. d/b/a Suntria ("Suntria") is in the business of soliciting consumers for the purchase of residential solar panel systems through door-to-door sales. 4. Defendant Legatus Company, LLC. d/b/a Custom Pro Roofing & Solar ("Legatus" and "Custom Pro") is in the business of installing residential solar panel systems and, upon information and belief, participates in the sale of such systems to consumers. 5. Defendant GoodLeap, LLC ("GoodLeap") is in the business of offering and servicing loans for residential solar panel systems. 6. GoodLeap operates nationwide through its subsidiaries, engaging in loan origination, servicing, and assignment related to solar panel financing. 7. Upon information and belief, Suntria, Legatus, and GoodLeap operate together to market, sell, finance, and install residential solar panel systems to consumers. 8. At all times relevant, each Defendant acted for the benefit of and on behalf of the other Defendant. 9. Defendants rely on sales agents acting on their behalf to obtain accurate information about and from the customer during the sale process. 10. On information and belief, at all times relevant, GoodLeap retained the right to control the manner and method of sales presentation of its solar loan products, including sales accomplished through its partner companies. 11. Defendants require sales agents acting on their behalf, such as the salesperson here, to view and sign documents electronically, and to do so in a certain manner specified by Defendants. 12. Upon information and belief, Defendants carry on a symbiotic business relationship in which Defendant Suntria solicits customers at their homes, Defendant Custom Pro installs the solar systems, and Defendant GoodLeap finances the transactions. Defendants rely upon and depend on each other to carry out this course of business. 13. At all times relevant, Defendant Suntria and Custom Pro acted on behalf of and for the benefit of GoodLeap, who could not complete the transaction without the involvement of the sales representative. In other words, Defendants have a symbiotic relationship that relies upon the sales agent who is the only face of the companies when dealing with the consumer. STATEMENT OF FACTS 14. On or about April 18, 2023, Ms. Abioye and her late husband, Adeolu Abioye (Mr. Abioye), were approached at their home by a door-to-door salesperson, Jordan Grill, regarding the purchase and installation of a residential solar panel system. 15. At all relevant times, Adeolu Abioye was a party to the transaction at issue. Following his death, his claims are brought by Ms. Aboiye in her capacity as Special Administrator of his Estate. 16. During the sales presentation, the salesperson represented to them that the total cost of the solar panel system would be approximately $22,000, that the financing would carry an interest rate of approximately 2% and that the monthly payments on the system would be approximately $120. 17. The salesperson further represented that Ms. Abioye and her husband would receive a substantial government rebate, estimated at approximately $20,000, which would significantly reduce the overall cost of the system. 18. Ms. Abioye and her husband were also promised that the solar panel system would reduce or eliminate their existing electricity bill and would potentially generate additional financial benefit through excess energy production. 19. Relying on these representations, Ms. Abioye and her husband agreed to move forward with the transaction. 20. The transaction documents were presented to Ms. Abioye and her husband electronically on the salesperson’s laptop during the in-home sales presentation. 21. The loan for the solar system only shows being in Mr. Abioye’s name, but Ms. Abioye also provided her signature and signed contracts. 22. Ms. Abioye and her husband were not provided with a copy of any contract documents at the time of signing. 23. Thereafter, Ms. Abioye and her husband received contract documents from GoodLeap and Custom Pro, both dated May 13, 2023. 24. Ms. Abioye and her husband did not receive the May 13, 2023, contract documents at or near the time of execution, but only later after the transaction had already progressed. 25. Upon information and belief, the agreements executed electronically differed materially from the terms represented by the salesperson during the sales presentation. 26. These documents reflected a substantially different transaction than what had been represented, including a total financed amount of $52,139.74 and an interest rate of 4.49%. 27. These terms were materially different from and significantly more burdensome than the terms represented to Ms. Abioye and her husband at the time of sale, as they relied solely on Ms. Abioye’s income at the time. 28. On July 24, 2023, Ms. Abioye texted Jordan Grill that the terms of the contract they were provided were not what they had initially agreed upon. 29. Mr. Grill responded “It was the wrong financing. We are canceling it out and covering the cost. I’m making sure you guys get taken care of.” 30. Ms. Abioye and her husband continued to dispute the terms of the transaction and refused to accept the modified terms reflected in the documentation. 31. Ms. Abioye and her husband continued to reach out to Mr. Grill for assistance, but Mr. Grill eventually stopped responding to their messages and calls all together. 32. Defendants proceeded with delivery and installation despite having actual notice that Ms. Abioye and her husband disputed the terms of the transaction and did not agree to the financing presented. 33. Ms. Abioye and her husband initially refused installation on multiple occasions; however, the system was ultimately installed on their home despite their numerous complaints and refusals. 34. The solar panel system was never connected to the electrical grid and has never produced electricity or provided any benefit to Ms. Abioye or Mr. Abioye. 35. Despite the lack of performance and the ongoing dispute regarding the terms of the agreement, Plaintiffs began receiving billing statements from Defendant GoodLeap related to the financing of the solar panel system. 36. Plaintiffs have not made any payments toward the alleged loan obligation. 37. Despite Jordan Grill admitting that the financing was incorrect, Defendants still sought to enforce the incorrect loan terms and demanded payment. 38. During this already stressful situation, Ms. Abioye’s husband passed away on November 17, 2023. 39. Following his death, Ms. Abioye has continued to receive communications and demands related to the alleged loan obligation. 40. Upon information and belief, Defendants have asserted and/or continue to assert that Ms. Abioye and/or her husband are obligated under the terms of the GoodLeap loan despite the disputed nature of the transaction and the lack of any benefit received from the solar panel system. 41. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Ms. Abioye and the Estate of Adeolu Abioye have been subjected to an invalid and disputed loan obligation, a nonfunctional solar panel system affixed to Ms. Abioye’s home, and ongoing risk of collection and financial harm. 42. Defendants enable this fraudulent and deceptive conduct through their corporate processes, which include electronic tools that they provide to their sales agents, enabling their sales agents to, among other things, (a) acquire detailed information about the property owner before meeting with the property owner, (b) obtain and use the property owner’s consumer credit report to qualify the potential customer, and (c) sign documents electronically with the tap of a button. 43. On information and belief, Defendants have a pattern and practice of misrepresenting to consumers the very nature of the transaction, resulting in consumers unwittingly signing decades-long solar contracts, including loans, without their knowledge or consent. 44. Despite ample notice of this problem, Defendants intentionally turn a blind eye to the fraud committed and continue to allow and enable their sales agents to employ fraudulent or deceptive sales practices. 45. On information and belief, Defendants, as a matter of policy, do not provide signed contract documents in paper format at the time of signing. 46. Pursuant to Oklahoma law, Defendants were required to provide Ms. Abioye and her husband with notice of their right to cancel the transaction within three full business days following the day of the transaction. 47. Defendants never provided Ms. Abioye and her husband with notice that complies with the above-referenced requirements. 48. Defendants’ willful, wanton, reckless, and/or negligent conduct has resulted in Ms. Abioye and the Estate of Adeolu Abioye suffering significant financial harm. Moreover, Ms. Abioye has suffered mental and emotional distress, worry, and aggravation because of Defendants’ actions. 49. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Ms. Abioye and her husband were fraudulently induced into contracts they never understood the terms of, burdened with an overpriced and underperforming solar system, subjected to wrongful demands for payment, and deprived of the promised energy savings. 50. GoodLeap’s liability is both independent and derivative of Custom Pro and Suntria’s actions, pursuant to 16 C.F.R. § 433.1 et seq., effective May 14, 1976; 40 F.R. No. 223, 53506 (Nov. 18, 1975). 51. Ms. Abioye and the Estate of Adeolu Abioye file this claim against the Defendants for actual, consequential, statutory, and exemplary damages, as well as claims of Breach of Contract, revocation/recission, Fraud/Fraud in the Inducement, Violation of the Oklahoma Consumer Credit Code, Violation of Oklahoma’s Uniform Commercial Code, Violation of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act. WHEREFORE, premises stated, Ms. Abioye and the Estate of Adeolu Abioye pray for actual, consequential, statutory, and punitive damages; along with reasonable attorney fees and costs of this action and all other relief the Court deems just and proper. Respectfully Submitted, [Signature] Minal Gahlot, QBA #22145 Oklahoma Consumer Law Firm 910 SW 107th Street, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, OK 73170 (405) 331-5811 [email protected] Attorney for the Plaintiffs JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ATTORNEY LIEN CLAIMED