BSM Holdings v. Brooklyn Davis

Let’s cut straight to the drama: a landlord is suing a tenant for rent and damages, but left the dollar amounts blank—like they forgot to do basic math before filing a legal document. Yes, you read that right. In a sworn affidavit submitted to the District Court of Canadian County, Oklahoma, the plaintiff’s representative literally wrote “$____________________” not once, but twice—once for unpaid rent, once for property damage. It’s like showing up to a fight with an unloaded water gun. This isn’t just a landlord-tenant dispute. This is performance art disguised as a small claims filing.

So who are we dealing with here? On one side, we’ve got BSM Holdings—a mysterious entity with a P.O. box in El Reno and the kind of name that sounds like a startup that sells Bluetooth-enabled sponges. They own rental property, that much we know. Representing them? Ty or Emily McClellan. Yes, “Ty or Emily.” We don’t know which. Could be a duo. Could be one person with a split personality. Could be a clerical error so poetic it belongs in a sitcom. Either way, they’re the ones who swore under oath that, uh, someone owes some money… probably. On the other side: Brooklyn Davis, tenant, resident of unit C-10 at 801 N. Willie L. Miner Ave., and, at this point, the most patient person in Canadian County. Because unless BSM Holdings has sent invoices via carrier pigeon, Davis has likely been aware of the rent situation. But here’s the kicker—so is everyone else now, because this document is public record, and it reads like a Mad Libs game gone wrong.

Now, let’s reconstruct the alleged crime spree. Brooklyn Davis rented a unit from BSM Holdings. Standard stuff. Lease agreement, keys exchanged, probably a vague text about “no pets” sent on move-in day. Then—plot twist—Davis allegedly stopped paying rent. Or at least, that’s what BSM thinks happened. They also believe Davis may have done something to the property that requires compensation, though the affidavit is mysteriously silent on what, exactly. Did they repaint the walls neon green? Install a jacuzzi in the living room? Leave a pet raccoon behind? We don’t know. The form just says “damages,” which in landlord-speak could mean anything from a scratched countertop to an exorcism being needed. BSM, or Ty/Emily (we’re rooting for Emily, by the way—feels like a “leave blanks in legal documents” kind of vibe), claims they demanded payment. Davis allegedly refused. And now, BSM wants Davis out. They’re invoking Forcible Entry and Detainer, which sounds like a medieval siege tactic but is actually just Oklahoma’s fancy term for “eviction.” It’s the legal equivalent of saying, “Get out, and also, pay up.”

But here’s where the plot thickens like week-old gravy: the total amount owed? $___________. That’s not a typo. The form has two blank lines for money—one for rent, one for damages—and both are just… empty. Floating in the void. Did they forget to fill it in? Did they assume the court would just guess? “Hmm, looks like about $3,800 in emotional distress and one slightly wilted houseplant.” This isn’t just sloppy. It’s legendary. In the world of small claims court, where people sue over chewed-up couches and stolen lawn gnomes, this is the equivalent of a bank robber showing up with a note that says, “I would like some money please, amount unspecified.” You can almost hear the judge sighing and muttering, “I didn’t go to law school for this.”

So what does BSM Holdings actually want? Officially, they’re seeking injunctive relief, which in plain English means: “Make Brooklyn Davis leave the apartment.” They also want money—some amount, TBD—for unpaid rent and damages. But without specifying how much, it’s hard to say if this is a reasonable request or a full-blown cash grab. Is this $500 in back rent and a broken blinds cord? Or is it $10,000 because Davis turned the unit into a DIY kombucha brewery and flooded the basement? We don’t know. And more importantly—the court doesn’t know. In small claims court, where rules are looser but basic competence is still expected, this kind of omission is like bringing a participation trophy to a knife fight.

And let’s talk perspective. In Canadian County, where the median rent for a one-bedroom is around $750, even $2,000 in unpaid rent would be a few months’ worth—serious, but not earth-shattering. Property damage claims are trickier. A smashed window? A few hundred. Water damage from negligence? Could climb. But again—no numbers, no receipts, no photos, no nothing. Just a blank line and a dream. If BSM is asking for five grand for a missing towel rack, that’s absurd. If they’re owed twelve grand and just forgot to write it down, that’s on them. Either way, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, and right now, BSM Holdings is bringing zero.

Now, our take. The most absurd part of this case isn’t the eviction. It’s not even the damages. It’s the blanks. This is a sworn legal document. People get jailed for lying on these. And yet, someone at BSM Holdings—or Ty/Emily, lone warrior of paperwork—managed to submit an affidavit where the most important numbers are just… missing. Did they run out of ink? Was this a test form they accidentally filed? Did they assume the court clerk would just “figure it out”? It’s like submitting your taxes with “Insert W-2 info here” and expecting a refund. And yet, here we are. The case is docketed. The tenant has been named. The legal machine is grinding forward, all because someone couldn’t be bothered to do simple addition.

Do we feel bad for landlords dealing with non-paying tenants? Sure. It’s tough. But if you’re going to drag someone to court, at least bring the basics. A number. A date. A coherent sentence. This isn’t just negligence—it’s a spectacle. And while we’re not rooting for property damage or rent evasion, we are rooting for accountability. If BSM wants Davis out, fine. Show the math. Prove the damage. Name the amount. Otherwise, this whole thing looks less like a legal action and more like a cry for help from a property management team that really should’ve invested in a better filing system.

In the end, this case is a perfect microcosm of small claims court: petty, personal, and occasionally hilarious. It’s not about justice. It’s about who can fill out a form without leaving critical blanks. And right now, BSM Holdings is losing—by default. Because in the battle of landlord vs. tenant, the real villain might just be the edit button they forgot to use.