CJ-2026-778 - Tim McDonald and Carolyn McDonald v. The City of Tulsa

What's This Case About?

Let’s get one thing straight: no one expects their home to turn into a glorified septic tank. But for Tim and Carolyn McDonald of Tulsa, Oklahoma, that’s exactly what happened—twice—and now they’re suing the city for $75,000 because, apparently, raw sewage backing up into your living room isn’t just a biohazard, it’s a constitutional violation.

Meet Tim and Carolyn McDonald, a married couple who, like most homeowners, just wanted a clean, dry house where they could live their lives without wading through human waste. They own a home at 7723 East 85th Street in Tulsa, a modest residence connected—like all homes in civilized society—to the city’s sewer system. That system, supposedly maintained by the City of Tulsa, is supposed to carry waste away from homes, not into them. But in this case, thanks to what the McDonalds allege is a shocking level of municipal negligence, their home became Ground Zero for a sewage disaster of biblical proportions.

The trouble started way back on January 5, 2023—yes, over two years ago—when the city itself discovered a blockage in the main sewer line near the McDonalds’ property. The cause? Tree roots. Not some exotic invasive species, not a collapsed pipe from an earthquake, just plain old roots growing where they shouldn’t. The city logged a work order, noted the blockage, and… that was it. No repairs. No follow-up inspection. No “Hey, maybe we should fix this before it explodes later.” According to the lawsuit, the city didn’t even send a camera down the pipe to see what was really going on. They just… left it. Like a ticking time bomb filled with sludge.

Fast forward to September 16, 2025—because yes, this all happened after the filing of the lawsuit, which was submitted on November 12, 2025—and the inevitable occurred: the main sewer line clogged again. This time, the backup had nowhere to go but up. And when we say “up,” we mean into the McDonalds’ home. Sewage started flooding their residence, damaging their property, ruining their belongings, and turning their house into a health inspector’s worst nightmare. They reported it immediately. The city sent a crew. The crew tried to inspect the line but had to stop because—shockingly—there was a “hole in the mainline and a rootball.” When they finally reached 206 feet into the pipe, they found a “large break with a large rootball.” The same break, the lawsuit alleges, that caused the first blockage in 2023. The one the city never fixed.

But the nightmare didn’t end there. Five days later, on September 21, Tim McDonald was cleaning up the mess—trying, like any responsible homeowner, to mitigate the damage—when he slipped on the wet, sewage-soaked floor and fell, injuring his head and right elbow. He needed medical treatment. He incurred medical bills. And all of it, the McDonalds argue, traces back to one thing: the city’s failure to do its damn job.

So why are they in court? Legally speaking, they’re making three big claims: negligence, nuisance, and inverse condemnation. Let’s break that down in plain English, because let’s be honest, most of us didn’t go to law school to understand “inverse condemnation”—we just want to know why our toilets aren’t vomiting sewage.

First, negligence: The city had a duty to maintain the sewer system. They knew about the first blockage. They knew roots were causing it. They did nothing. That’s not just lazy—it’s legally reckless. By failing to fix a known problem, the city allegedly caused the second backup, which damaged the McDonalds’ home and led to Tim’s injury. That’s negligence 101.

Second, nuisance: This isn’t just about property damage. It’s about quality of life. Imagine trying to live in a house that smells like a port-a-potty in July. Imagine not knowing if your shower might start spewing sewage at any moment. The McDonalds say the city’s actions (or lack thereof) created an ongoing, unbearable disruption to their lives—something the law recognizes as a “nuisance,” especially when it interferes with your ability to enjoy your own home.

Third—and this is where it gets wild—inverse condemnation. This is a constitutional claim. Basically, the McDonalds are arguing that by allowing sewage to flood their home and damage their property, the city effectively “took” their property for public use—without paying for it. Under the Oklahoma Constitution, the government can’t just damage your land without compensation, even if they didn’t physically seize it. If a city project floods your basement every time it rains, that’s not an “oops”—it’s a taking. And the McDonalds are saying: “You ruined our home. You made it unsafe. You owe us.”

As for what they want? They’re seeking at least $75,000 in damages—plus attorney fees, costs, and whatever else the court deems fair. Is $75,000 a lot for sewage flooding your house and causing a head injury? Honestly? It might not even cover the cleanup, let alone the emotional toll. Mold remediation, flooring replacement, appliance damage, medical bills, lost property value—this stuff adds up fast. And don’t even get us started on the therapy bills for “Why does my house smell like a sewer?” PTSD.

Now, here’s our take: the most absurd part of this whole saga isn’t that sewage backed up into a house. That happens. What’s absurd is that the city knew about the problem two years before the second disaster and did nothing. No inspection. No repair. No “Hey, maybe we should fix the giant hole in the sewer line before it becomes someone’s personal hell.” And now, instead of just owning it and fixing it, the McDonalds have to sue—after one of them got injured cleaning up the city’s mess.

We’re rooting for the McDonalds. Not because we love lawsuits, but because this is about basic accountability. If you’re in charge of a sewer system, you don’t get to shrug when it fails. You don’t get to pretend it’s not your problem when raw sewage floods a family’s home. The city took on the responsibility of maintaining that infrastructure. They dropped the ball—literally and figuratively. And now, they need to pay up.

Because at the end of the day, no one should have to choose between cleaning up their living room or risking a head injury from slipping in human waste. That’s not homeownership. That’s a horror story. And in Tulsa, it’s now a court case.

Case Overview

$75,000 Demand Jury Trial Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Ryan J. Fulda

FULDA LAW, PLLC

Relief Sought

$0 Monetary

$0 Punitive

Plaintiffs

Tim McDonald and Carolyn McDonald individual
Rep: Ryan J. Fulda

Defendants

The City of Tulsa government

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	negligence, nuisance and inverse condemnation	property damage, personal injury, inconvenience, disruption of life, emotional distress, and attorney fees

Petition Text

1,476 words

DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA TIM MCDONALD AND CAROLYN MCDONALD, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs, v. THE CITY OF TULSA, Defendant. PETITION WITH JURY DEMAND Plaintiffs Tim McDonald and Carolyn McDonald, husband and wife, by and through their attorney of record, Ryan Fulda of FULDA LAW, PLLC, and for their claims against Defendant City of Tulsa, hereby allege and state as follows: 1. Plaintiffs Tim McDonald and Carolyn McDonald, husband and wife ("Plaintiffs") are domiciled in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma. Plaintiffs live in Oklahoma and intend to remain in the state. 2. Defendant City of Tulsa ("City") is a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the state of Oklahoma and with its principal place of business in Tulsa, Oklahoma. 3. This Petition asserts claims for negligence, nuisance and inverse condemnation against Defendant City of Tulsa. 4. Venue is proper in the District Court of Tulsa County under OKLA. STAT. TIT. 12 § 137 because the cause of action occurred in the county's jurisdictional boundaries. I. COMPLIANCE WITH OKLAHOMA GTCA 5. Prior to filing this Petition, Plaintiffs have complied with the tort claim notice requirements of the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claim Act, OKLA. STAT. TIT. 51 § 151, et. seq. 6. Plaintiffs filed a notice of claim to the Defendant City of Tulsa (the "Notice") on or about November 11, 2025. 7. Plaintiffs’ notice was filed within one year from the occurrence alleged herein and was denied by default by the City by operation of law. 8. This Petition is being filed within 180 days from the Defendant City of Tulsa's Denial pursuant to OKLA. STAT. TIT. 51 § 157(B). 9. This Court has jurisdiction, and venue is proper in this Court. II. THE CITY'S SEWER SYSTEM AND SEWER BACK-UPS 10. At all times relevant to the underlying claims, Plaintiffs were residents of Defendant City of Tulsa. 11. Plaintiffs’ home is located in the City. 12. The City is responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the City's wastewater collection system. 13. Having undertaken the maintenance and upkeep of the City's wastewater collection system, the City owes residents a legal duty to perform such maintenance and upkeep in a reasonable manner. III. THE PLAINTIFFS AND THE SEWER BACK-UP FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF: NEGLIGENT INJURY TO PERSON AND PROPERTY 14. Plaintiffs are the owners and occupants of a personal residence at 7723 East 85th Street, Tulsa, OK 74133 (the “Residence”). 15. The Plaintiffs’ Residence has a "private" sewer line which runs underground and connects their private plumbing systems to a "main line" owned and maintained by the City. 16. The Plaintiffs’ private line connects to the City’s main line at a location between Manhole 60-0040 (upstream manhole) and Manhole 60-0039 (downstream manhole). 17. On or about January 5, 2023, the City of Tulsa identified a blockage in the main sewer line located between manhole 60-0040 (upstream manhole) and manhole 60-0039 (downstream manhole), (the “First Blockage"). 18. The location of the First Blockage is identified on the excerpt from the City’s Sewer Atlas shown below: ![Excerpt from the City's Sewer Atlas showing the location of the First Blockage](https://example.com/first_blockage_excerpt.png) 19. The City of Tulsa identified the location of the First Blockage as approximately 40 feet upstream from Manhole 060-0039. 20. A Work Order prepared by the sewer maintenance and operations department for the City of Tulsa identified the cause of the First Blockage as “roots”. 21. After the City received actual notice of the Blockage, the City did not do anything to correct the broken part of the line through which the roots entered and caused the Blockage. 22. Upon information and belief, after the City received actual notice of the First Blockage, the City did not perform a visual inspection of the line with a video camera, CCTV, or other device. 23. Consequently, it was only a matter of time before roots grew in the line and caused another blockage. 24. On or about September 16, 2025, the mainline connected to Plaintiffs’ private line became blocked (the “Second Blockage”). 25. After the Second Blockage, the main line’s flow was significantly reduced. 26. The significant reduction in flow diverted sewer water into the Plaintiffs’ Residence. 27. The sewer water backed up into Plaintiffs’ Residence and caused damage to Plaintiffs’ home and personal property. 28. Plaintiffs reported the blockage to the City of Tulsa. 29. The Sewer Operations and Maintenance Department at the City of Tulsa sent out a crew to investigate the line. 30. The crew “TV’d” the line 40-feet from downstream Manhole 060-0039 but “had to abandon our survey due to a hole in the mainline and a rootball.” 31. The crew noted: “We attempted to cut out roots with an 8-inch cutter and we were bringing back lots of sand and some tile.” 32. The crew entered from upstream Manhole 060-0040 and went 206 feet downstream. At 206 feet, the crew found a “large break with a large rootball.” 33. The break at 206-feet was a cause of the First Blockage and the Second Blockage. 34. After the First Blockage, the City should have fixed the break at 206-feet. 35. The City was negligent in failing to fix the break at 206-feet after the First Blockage. 36. As a result of the backup, Plaintiffs experienced significant disruption of life, inconvenience, nuisance, and stress. 37. On September 21, 2025, Plaintiff Tim McDonald was working at the home in order to mitigate damage to property caused by the backup. In the course of working at the home, Plaintiff slipped and fell and injured his head and right elbow. Plaintiff has received medical treatment and incurred medical expenses in relation to injuries caused by the backup. 38. Defendant had a legal duty to exercise reasonable care in the maintenance and upkeep of the wastewater collection system. 39. Defendant breached its duty to exercise reasonable care in the maintenance and upkeep of the wastewater collection system. 40. Defendant's breach of duty was a proximate cause of the property damage and nuisance experienced by Plaintiff. 41. The City's nuisance has unlawfully injured and endangered Plaintiffs use of their property, causing ongoing nuisance, inconvenience, disruption of life, and emotional distress to Plaintiffs. WHEREFORE the Plaintiffs seeks damages from Defendant City of Tulsa for property damage, personal injury, inconvenience, disruption of life, emotional distress, and attorney fees for the maximum amount allowed under the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF: INVERSE CONDEMNATION 42. Plaintiffs adopt the above allegations and incorporate them by reference. 43. Inverse condemnation actions are authorized under Section 24, Article II of the Oklahoma Constitution, which states, in part: "Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation..." 44. A claim for inverse condemnation is a claim for a violation of the Oklahoma Constitution. This is not a tort claim; therefore, this claim is not affected by Oklahoma's Governmental Tort Claims Act. 45. On or about September 16, 2025, Defendants’ acts and omissions directed water onto and into Plaintiffs' Residence. 46. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s actions, the Plaintiffs’ Residence sustained significant damage. 47. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s actions, the Plaintiffs’ Residence was substantially damaged, and the value of the Plaintiffs’ Residence was substantially impaired. 48. The actions and inactions of Defendant were done wrongfully, unlawfully, and without prior permit or condemnation. 49. The value of the Plaintiffs’ Residence was diminished as the result of an exercise of the government's power of eminent domain to effectively take the Plaintiffs’ property. 50. Plaintiffs’ damages are special damages which are different from that suffered by the community in general. 51. The Defendant's substantial interference with the use and enjoyment of Plaintiffs’ Residence is so substantial that it constitutes an effective taking of Plaintiffs’ Residential Properties. 52. Since the Defendant's actions, the Plaintiffs’ Residence has been taken and damaged without just compensation having been made or paid, and the Plaintiffs are entitled to be compensated in a sum to be determined pursuant to law. 53. The Defendant's actions have caused the Plaintiffs to incur expenses of flood clean up and repair/replacement of portions of Plaintiffs’ Residence. 54. The Defendant's actions and inactions were unlawful. 55. The Defendant's actions and inactions constituted a failure to perform a duty to the Plaintiffs. 56. The Defendant's actions and inactions unlawfully interfered with the Plaintiffs’ use of their property. 57. The Defendant's actions and inactions made the Plaintiffs insecure in their life. 58. The Defendant's actions and inactions made the Plaintiffs insecure in their use of the property. 59. Plaintiffs demand judgment: a. Determining that the Plaintiffs’ property has been taken by the City, b. Determining and awarding the Plaintiffs the just compensation to which they are entitled, together with reasonable costs, disbursements and expenses, including reasonable attorney, appraisal and engineering fees, actually incurred, c. For damages in excess of $75,000, d. Awarding the Plaintiffs interest, and e. Awarding the Plaintiffs such other and further relief as the court may deem just and equitable. WHEREFORE the Plaintiffs seek damages from Defendant for inverse condemnation and for the maximum amount of damages allowed under Oklahoma law. Respectfully submitted, Ryan J. Fulda, OBA #21184 FULDA LAW, PLLC 1800 South Baltimore Avenue, Suite 420 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74119 Telephone & Fax: (918) 550-8109 [email protected] ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS