CJ-2026-23 - Dinesh Patel v. Jason Humble

What's This Case About?

Let’s get one thing straight: this is not your average loan gone bad. We’re not talking about a buddy borrowing $20 for gas and ghosting you. No, this is a full-blown financial telenovela involving a half-million-dollar handshake deal, not one but three formal agreements, a mortgage on a Texas property, and a man who allegedly promised to pay up—then didn’t. And didn’t. And still didn’t. Oh, and the kicker? The guy accused of swiping the cash—Jason Humble, of Humble Advisors, LLC—might not be all that humble, but he is allegedly a millionaire with properties in Texas and a business registered in Wyoming. Meanwhile, Dinesh Patel, a Tulsa-based investor, is sitting there with a stack of signed contracts and exactly zero dollars in his account. Welcome to the civil court version of Succession, if Logan Roy just straight-up ghosted on a promissory note.

So who are these two? On one side, you’ve got Dinesh Patel, a resident of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, who appears to be a private investor with enough capital to casually loan out $400,000 like it’s a down payment on a modest suburban home. He’s represented by Donald A. Lepp of Barrow & Grimm, P.C.—a firm that, fun fact, specializes in business litigation and white-collar defense. So, not exactly your “I got a parking ticket” kind of lawyer. On the other side is Jason Humble, a Texas-based businessman and the sole member of Humble Advisors, LLC, a Wyoming-registered entity that sounds like it should be advising small towns on fiscal responsibility, not allegedly stiffing business partners out of half a million bucks. The two aren’t family. They’re not old college roommates. They’re business associates—though at this point, “business enemies” might be more accurate.

Now, let’s rewind to April 2025, when Humble allegedly came knocking on Patel’s financial door with a pitch so smooth it could’ve been waxed. According to the filing, Humble approached Patel asking for a short-term loan—just $400,000, no big deal—to fund some kind of investment. He promised it would be paid back in 30 business days, with interest due in 45. Risk? “Non-existent,” Humble supposedly said. And to sweeten the pot, he even signed a mortgage on his personal property in Collin County, Texas, claiming it was unencumbered—meaning, no other loans or liens on it. That’s like putting your house on the line as collateral. It’s serious. It’s supposed to mean you’re not bluffing.

So Patel, trusting the paperwork and the real estate guarantee, wired the money. May 20, 2025: deal done. Promissory note signed. Mortgage filed. Everyone’s happy. Except… the payment never came. Not in 30 days. Not in 45. Not even a “Hey, can we push this back?” Nothing. Radio silence. So Patel, now sweating, probably called his lawyer.

Enter Act Two: the first rewrite. On August 8, 2025—nearly three months after the original due date—the two parties signed an Amended and Restated Promissory Note, again drafted by Humble, reaffirming the $400,000 debt with a new deadline: August 19, 2025. That’s right—less than two weeks to pay. But once again, Humble didn’t pay. Not a dime. Not a wire. Not even a “my dog ate the check.” At this point, Patel’s not just annoyed—he’s lawyered up and ready for war.

But instead of going straight to court, they try one last time to settle it like adults. On November 28, 2025, they sign a Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release. That’s legal speak for: “Let’s just end this. We’ll both walk away if you pay me.” But Humble doesn’t pay. Again. So they do it again—this time on December 17, 2025, they sign the Amended Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release. And this time, the number isn’t $400,000 anymore. It’s $500,000. Ten percent interest? Inflation? A penalty for being a professional flake? The filing doesn’t say, but the message is clear: “You’ve burned so many bridges, we’re charging you extra just to cross the last one.”

The new deadline? December 22, 2025. Five days. And once again—crickets. No wire transfer. No call. No explanation. Just a $500,000 promise evaporating into the ether. And remember that mortgage Humble signed back in May? Apparently, it’s as useful as a screen door on a submarine—because either the property wasn’t as unencumbered as claimed, or Humble just didn’t care. Either way, Patel’s left holding a stack of legal documents and a growing sense of betrayal.

So why are they in court? Two reasons, spelled out in the petition: breach of agreement and fraud. The first one—breach of agreement—is pretty straightforward. You sign a contract, you break it, you’re liable. Patel says Humble signed four separate agreements (the original note, the amended note, the first settlement, and the final amended settlement), and failed to honor any of them. That’s not bad luck. That’s a pattern. And in legal terms, a pattern of non-payment is a pretty solid case for breach.

The second claim—fraud—is where it gets spicy. Patel isn’t just saying Humble failed to pay. He’s saying Humble never intended to pay from the beginning. That the whole “short-term loan, no risk” pitch was a lie. That the mortgage was a smokescreen. That Humble knew he wouldn’t repay the money, but signed everything anyway to buy time or extract cash under false pretenses. If proven, that’s not just a broken promise—it’s intentional deception. And that’s why Patel is asking for more than just the money back. He wants damages—meaning compensation for the stress, the legal fees, the time, the lost opportunity to invest that half-mil elsewhere.

Now, here’s where it gets a little confusing: Patel is suing for over $75,000 in damages. Wait—$75,000? Not $500,000? That seems… low. But here’s the twist: in civil court, especially in Oklahoma, there’s a strategic reason to keep the amount just above $75,000. Why? Because that’s the threshold for unlimited jurisdiction in district court. If you ask for more than $75,000, you’re in the big leagues—full discovery, higher stakes, more complex procedures. But if you stay just over, you still get to be in district court, but with a little more flexibility. So Patel’s not saying, “I only want $75,000.” He’s saying, “I want at least $75,000,” which legally opens the door to recover the full $500,000 plus interest, fees, and penalties. It’s like ordering a $75.01 meal to get access to the VIP lounge.

So what’s our take? Look, business deals go south all the time. People miss payments. Agreements get broken. But what makes this case deliciously absurd is the sheer audacity of the repetition. Most people who flake on a loan don’t sign three follow-up agreements promising to pay. They don’t draft the documents themselves. They don’t put their property on the line, then walk away like they won Monopoly. And they definitely don’t escalate the debt from $400K to $500K and still fail to pay. This isn’t negligence. This is performance art-level flakiness.

And yet—here we are. Two grown men, multiple attorneys, notarized documents signed across state lines (including an electronic notarization in Texas, because 2025 is apparently the future), and a wire transfer that never happened. The most tragic part? Patel didn’t even get the satisfaction of a dramatic confrontation. No yelling. No slammed doors. Just silence. A blank inbox where a half-million-dollar wire should’ve been.

We’re not rooting for blood. We’re not saying Humble should be thrown into debtor’s prison (not that Oklahoma has those). But we are rooting for accountability. For the idea that when you sign your name to four legally binding documents, you can’t just ghost like it’s a bad first date. Because if that’s the new normal, then we might as well start notarizing our text messages. “I promise I’ll Venmo you. Swear on my mom. Notary public Daniel Grimaldo, signing in.”

Case Overview

Jury Trial Petition

Jurisdiction

Tulsa County District Court, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Donald A. Lepp

Barrow & Grimm, P.C.

Relief Sought

$75,000 Monetary

Plaintiffs

Dinesh Patel individual
Rep: Donald A. Lepp, OBA No. 46260, Barrow & Grimm, P.C.

Defendants

Jason Humble individual
Humble Advisors, LLC business

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Breach of Agreement
2	Fraud

Petition Text

2,233 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR TULSA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT STATE OF OKLAHOMA DINESH PATEL, Plaintiff, vs. JASON HUMBLE, individually; and HUMBLE ADVISORS, LLC, Defendants. PETITION Plaintiff, Dinesh Patel ("Patel" or "Plaintiff"), by and through his attorneys of record, Barrow & Grimm, P.C., for his causes of action against the Defendants, Jason Humble ("Humble") and Humble Advisors, LLC ("HA")(collectively "Defendants"), alleges and states as follows: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff is a resident of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. 2. Upon information and belief, Defendant Humble is a resident of Dallas County, Texas. 3. Upon information and belief, Defendant HA is a Wyoming Limited Liability Company with its principal place of business in Sheridan Wyoming and Humble is HA's sole member. 4. The acts and omissions giving rise to this matter arise out of Defendants' breach of the Amended Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release between the Parties. 5. This Court has both proper jurisdiction and venue for this action. STATEMENT OF FACTS 6. In late April 2025, Humble approached Plaintiff to induce him into loaning money to Defendants for the purpose of an investment. 7. Humble claimed to need the money for a short period of time. 8. Humble made representations to Plaintiff that he just needed short term access to the funds, and that the risk was non-existent that Plaintiff would not be paid back. 9. Humble knew at the time he made thee representations that he did not intend to repay Plaintiff in a timely fashion, if at all. 10. Humble drafted a Promissory Note which he presented to Plaintiff. 11. On or about May 20, 2025, Plaintiff and Defendants entered into a Promissory Note wherein the Defendants agreed to repay Plaintiff the sum of $400,000.00. The Promissory Note required payment of the principal sum within thirty (30) business days plus interest to be paid within forty-five (45) business days. 12. On the same day, Humble signed a Mortgage on his property in Collin County, Texas, that he claimed was unencumbered. 13. Defendants breached the Note, and did not make payment when it was due. 14. On or about August 8, 2025, Plaintiff and the Defendants entered into an Amended and Restated Promissory Note ("Promissory Note"), which was drafted by Humble reaffirming the obligation by the Humble Parties to Plaintiff in the principal amount of $400,000.00, to be paid by August 19, 2025. 15. Defendants breached the Note, and did not make payment when it was due. 16. After Plaintiff engaged counsel, Humble, through his own counsel, claimed that the Note and Mortgage that he drafted was unenforceable. 17. Upon information and belief, Humble knew at the time that he drafted the Note and Mortgage and entered into those agreements that neither he nor HA had any intention on repaying the debt. 18. On or about November 28, 2025, Plaintiff and Defendants entered into a Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release. 19. Defendants breached the Settlement Agreement, and did not make payment when it was due. 20. On or about December 17, 2025, Plaintiff and Defendants entered into the Amended Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release ("Agreement"), which included a due date of December 22, 2025. See Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 21. Defendants breached the Agreement, and did not make payment when it was due. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION – BREACH OF AGREEMENT 22. Plaintiff hereby restates and realleges all previous allegations heretofore set forth in this Petition. 23. Defendants breached the Agreement by failing to honor any of the obligations to which it agreed in the Agreement. 24. As a result of Defendants breach of the Agreement, Plaintiff has suffered damages in excess of $75,000.00. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION – FRAUD 25. Plaintiff hereby restates and realleges all previous allegations heretofore set forth in this Petition. 26. Defendants made false statements they knew were untrue in an effort to induce Plaintiff to enter into the Promissory Note and subsequent amendments. 27. As a result of the false statements made by Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered damages in excess of $75,000.00. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Dinesh Patel, respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in his favor and against Defendants, Jason Humble and Humble Advisors, LLC, award Plaintiff damages in an amount in excess of $75,000.00 and all costs, expenses, and reasonable attorney’s fees associated with the prosecution of this action, as well as any other relief as this Court deems just and proper. Respectfully Submitted, By: _____________________________ Donald A. Lepp, OBA No. 46260 BARROW & GRIMM, P.C., 110 W. 7th Street, Suite 900 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74119 918-584-1600 918-585-2444 (fax) Attorney for Plaintiff ATTORNEY’S LIEN CLAIMED JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AMENDED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE This Amended Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release (the “Agreement”) is made by and between potential Dinesh Patel (“Patel”) on the one hand, and Humble Advisors, LLC (“HA”) and Jason Humble (“Humble”) (collectively, the “Humble Parties”), on the other. Patel and the Humble Parties are collectively referred to as the “Parties” and individually as a “Party.” The Agreement is effective as of the last date in which the Agreement is signed by any Party (the “Effective Date”). WHEREAS, HA represents and warrants that it is a Wyoming Limited Liability Company with its principal office located at 30 North Gould Street, Suite R, Sheridan, Wyoming 82801 and that Humble is HA’s sole member. WHEREAS, the Parties executed a Promissory Note dated May 20, 2025 (the “Original Note”), which created an obligation by the Humble Parties to Patel in the principal amount of $400,000.00; WHEREAS, the Parties executed an Amended and Restated Promissory Note dated August 8, 2025 (the “Amended Note”), which re-affirmed the obligation by the Humble Parties to Patel in the principal amount of $400,000.00 as originally set forth in the Original Note; WHEREAS, Humble executed a Real Estate Mortgage dated May 20, 2025 (the “Mortgage”), related to the property located at 1977 Mary Lee Lane, Allen, Texas 75002, which was used as collateral for the Original Note and then subsequently to the Amended Note; WHEREAS, the Humble Parties have made no payments towards the obligations owed to Patel pursuant to the terms of the Original Note or the Amended Note; WHEREAS, Patel alleges that the Humble Parties are in breach of the Original Note, the Amended Note, and the Mortgage, thereby entitling Patel to seek all damages available to Patel pursuant to Texas law, including actual damages, statutory interest, attorney fees, and costs (the “Dispute”); and WHEREAS, to avoid the uncertainties, annoyance, and expense of further litigation, the Humble Parties, by whom any and all liability is unconditionally denied, have agreed with Patel to settle all disputes and controversies between them, including the Dispute, as set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual terms contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as follows: 1. The Humble Parties agree to pay Patel the total sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS AND ZERO CENTS ($500,000.00) (the “Payment”) on or before December 22, 2025 by 1:00 p.m. CST. Both HA and Humble agree that each one of them are jointly and severally liable to Patel for the Payment. The Payment shall be made via a wire transfer to Patel at the following account: See Exhibit “A.” 2. The Parties mutually agree that the Agreement supersedes and replaces any prior agreements between them, either written or oral, including the Original Note, the Amended Note, and the Mortgage, (collectively, the “Prior Agreements”) and that the Prior Agreements shall be null and void and of no force and effect as of the Effective Date. As such, no Party shall have any rights or duties under the Prior Agreements. The Parties further acknowledge and agree that this Agreement is a commercial, non-consumer transaction. 3. The Parties, in exchange for the promises set forth in the Agreement, agree to accept the above-described consideration in FULL, FINAL, AND COMPLETE satisfaction of all claims, causes of action, lawsuits, proceedings, actions, disputes, controversies, demands, charges, costs, and fees, of whatever nature, which the Parties have held, may now hold, or may in the future own or hold against one another, related to or arising from the Prior Agreements and/or the Dispute as of the Effective Date (collectively, the “Claims”). The Parties agree to forever release, acquit, and discharge one another of and from the Claims. The Parties understand that this is a full and final compromise and settlement of all matters alleged and all matters that could have been alleged by one another in any action or proceeding, including a lawsuit, based on the Claims. 4. The Parties represent and warrant that they have made no assignment, pledge, sale, or transfer of any right, title, interest, or claim related to any of the Claims. 5. The Parties understand that the Agreement is entered into merely in order to avoid litigation and buy peace and that the Agreement is not to be construed as an admission of liability on the part of any Party, by whom any and all liability is expressly denied. 6. The Parties represent and warrant that they are relying on their own judgment and are represented by their own counsel with respect to this matter. The Parties understand the Agreement operates as a full, complete, and final release and settlement of the Claims. The Parties further state that they have read the Agreement and know the contents thereof and have signed the Agreement as their own free will, having engaged and consulted counsel regarding the Agreement to the extent they may deem necessary. The Parties state that they have not and are not relying on any statement or representation by any other Party or their counsel. 7. The Parties agree that each Party will bear their own respective attorneys fees, expenses, and costs. The Parties further covenant that they will not institute or prosecute any civil suit, arbitration, or other proceeding against each other that relates to the Claims. However, nothing in the Agreement shall prevent the Parties from instituting any such proceedings to the extent necessary to enforce the Agreement or rights granted hereunder. 8. No representations have been made regarding the taxability of all or any portion of the consideration contained in the Agreement. The Parties represent that they have had the opportunity to seek independent advice regarding the tax consequences of this settlement and accept responsibility for satisfaction of any tax obligation that may result from the Agreement. 9. The Parties acknowledges that the Agreement is a complete, written statement of the terms and conditions of the settlement, and the terms of the Agreement are contractual. The Agreement embodies the entire agreement among the Parties hereto and supersedes all prior proposals, negotiations, agreements and understandings relating to the subject matter hereof. 10. If a provision of the Agreement is or becomes illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, that shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any other provision of the Agreement. 11. The Agreement shall be governed and construed by the laws of the State of Oklahoma and the Parties agree that the Agreement is made and performable in Tulsa County, where exclusive jurisdiction shall lie for any dispute arising out of or related to the Agreement. 12. Each Party to the Agreement hereby represents and warrants to each other Party hereto (i) that each Party exclusively owns the rights of such Party being discharged herein and (ii) that the Agreement has been duly authorized, executed, and delivered by such Party, and constitutes the legal, valid and binding obligation of such Party enforceable against such Party in accordance with its terms. 13. The Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts which may be transmitted by email, facsimile, or other electronic means, and it shall not be necessary that the signatures of all parties hereto be contained on any one counterpart hereof; each counterpart and copy shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. [remainder of this page left intentionally blank] By: ________________________________ Dinesh Patel Date: 12/17/2025 THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY OF TULSA BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared Dinesh Patel, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed same for the purposes and considerations therein expressed. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE this 17 day of December 2025. JAYLEN TROUT Notary Public - State of Oklahoma Commission Number 25004967 My Commission Expires Apr 24, 2029 Notary Public in and for the State of Oklahoma Humble Advisors, LLC By: ____________________________ Name: Jason Humble Title: Sole Member Date: 12/17/2025 THE STATE OF TEXAS § § COUNTY OF DALLAS § BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared Jason Humble, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed same for the purposes and considerations therein expressed. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE this 17th day of December 2025. Notary Public in and for the State of Texas Notarized online using audio-video communication Daniel Grimaldo Electronic Notary Public State of Texas Commission #: 133993204 Commission Expires: 09/30/2026 By: ____________________________ Jason Humble Date: 12/17/2025 THE STATE OF TEXAS § § COUNTY OF DALLAS § BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared Jason Humble, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed same for the purposes and considerations therein expressed. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE this 17th day of December 2025. Notary Public in and for the State of Texas Daniel Grimaldo Electronic Notary Public State of Texas Commission #: 133993204 Commission Expires: 09/30/2026 EXHIBIT "A" DOMESTIC INCOMING WIRE TRANSFER INSTRUCTIONS Beneficiary Bank Name: Regent Bank Beneficiary Bank Address: 7136 S Yale Ave Tulsa, OK 74136 Bank Routing Number: [blacked out] Beneficiary Name: SWAMI SHRI INVESTMENTS LLC Beneficiary Bank Account Number: [blacked out]