# WRTGC-Commercial, LLC v. Precision Communications, Inc.

> District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · August 27, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10386770

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. Oklahoma
- **Decided:** August 27, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10386770

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that “the variation or misnomer in plaintiff's name as set forth in the [legal document was] immaterial” in part because “there [was] no evidence that the misnomer ... frustrated the identification of plaintiff or caused confusion to defendants”
- holding that “[c]ourts may disregard the corporate entity and hold stockholders personally liable for corporate obligations or corporate conduct under the legal 18 doctrines of fraud, alter ego and when necessary to protect the rights of third persons and accomplish jJustice.”

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

WRTGC-COMMERCIAL, LLC, )
d/b/a/ Cantrell-Griffin Business Brokers, )
an Arkansas LLC, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 20-CV-0162-CVE-CDL
)
PRECISION )
COMMUNICATIONS, INC., )
an Oklahoma corporation, and )
KAREN KYMAN, )
a resident of the state of Oklahoma, )
)
Defendants. )
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court are plaintiff WRTGC-Commercial, LLC’s motion for partial summary
judgment on a portion of its breach of contract claim (Dkt. # 47), and defendants’ Precision
Communications, Inc.’s (PCI’s) and Karen Kyman’s joint motion for summary judgment (Dkt. # 48).
In its motion (Dkt. # 47), plaintiff states that it has shown, as a matter of law, that PCI owes
plaintiff a commission for the sale of its assets consummated in March 2020. Defendants deny that
they owe plaintiff any commission because plaintiff is not a party to the contract or, alternatively,
because plaintiff's agent breached his fiduciary duties to defendants (Dkt. # 59). Plaintiff has filed
a reply (Dkt. #75). The motion is fully briefed.
In defendants’ motion (Dkt. # 48), defendants argue that plaintiff cannot bring any claims
against defendants, as plaintiff is not a party to the contract at issue. Defendants state no commission
is owed for the sale of the PCI’s assets, Kyman’s goodwill, or Kyman’s real estate, because the
contracting entity was illegally conducting business in Oklahoma without a license. In its response

(Dkt. # 58), plaintiff argues that it is the proper contracting party, that it is licensed to conduct
business in Oklahoma, and that it has properly stated breach of contract claims against PCI and
Kyman. Plaintiff further contends that, even in the absence of enforceable contracts, it is owed
commissions on the sales it brokered under a theory of quantum meruit and fraud. Defendants filed

a reply (Dkt. # 76), and the motion is fully briefed.
I. Background
Plaintiff, WRTGC-Commercial, LLC, is an Arkansas limited liability company that was
created in Arkansas on November 18, 2009. Dkt. # 47-1. Plaintiff has been licensed to do business
in Oklahoma since February 11, 2010. Dkt. # 47-2. “Cantrell-Griffin Business Brokers” has been
a registered trade name of plaintiff since December 18, 2012. Dkt. # 47-3. Stewart Nance works
for Cantrell-Griffin Business Brokers. Dkt. # 58-15, at 2.1

In 2017, Nance approached PCI’s president and sole shareholder, Karen Kyman, about the
possibility of serving as a business broker for the sale of PCI. On March 27, 2019, Kyman sent
Nance an email attaching a presentation that an earlier broker had put together for the potential sale
of the business. Dkt. # 75-3. That package stated that “long-term relationships with large clients
and partners” were a competitive advantage of PCI. Id. at 11. The presentation stated that “PCI
office, ship, and land [were] available as well.” Id. at 15. It stated that those assets were “[c]urrently

1 PCI states that this statement is “unsupported and denied.” Dkt. # 59, at 6. However, the
Court finds that it is supported by Nance’s sworn testimony, which is supported further by
his email signature block in communications with PCI. Dkt. # 47-12. PCI’s assertion that
Nance represented that Cantrell-Griffin Business Broker was an LLC, does not demonstrate
that Nance is not an independent contractor for WRTGC-Commercial, LLC d/b/a
Cantrell-Griffin Business Brokers.
2
leased from Karen Kyman.” Id. It also stated that the shareholder (Kyman) was “[o]pen to
transferring 100% of [the] company to the right buyer.” Id.
On March 28, 2019, David Jones, an attorney, wrote to Nance, stating that he represented PCI
and Kyman. Dkt. # 47-8, at 2. He stated that he attached his proposed mark-up of the “standard
listing agreement/real estate contract” that Nance had sent to Kyman. Id. He wrote that he did not
believe his comments and edits “substantively change[d] the agreement Karen [Kyman] reached with
[Nance].” He outlined that those terms were “6% commission[,] 12 month agreement which can be
terminated upon paying a 3% cancellation fee[,] 3% commission if Karen [Kyman] brings the buyer
to the table.” Id. He also “tweaked the agreement to clarify that PCI does not own the real estate
and that the [$]9.6 million asking price does not include real estate.” Id. Jones also added additional
terms. He proposed that “if Karen has to carry some of the purchase price, you'll receive the
commission when she receives her payment[,]” that “ifthe buyer requires working capital (cash or
receivables), you won’t receive a commission on the cash transferred to the buyer[,|” that Nance
“won't receive a commission on any post-closing wages paid to Karen[,]” and that “[i]f the buyer
leases rather than purchases the real estate, you won’t receive a commission on the lease payments.”
Id.
Later that day, Nance replied to Jones. Dkt. # 58-11, at 10. In that email, he replied to the
clarification of the fact that PCI does not own the real estate, stating “[m]y apologies for not making
this apparent with the two agreements to begin with> [sic] I had just focused on the business listing
discussions with Karen [Kyman] to this point but had told [her] we would handle the real estate in
a separate agreement since it is owned by a different entity (her). I use an Oklahoma licensed broker
in our firm to handle OK real estate transactions and suggest we send a separate agreement for the

real estate sale to Karen.” Id. In that email, Nance agreed to the pro rata commission payment
structure, the exclusion of cash or receivables from the commission, and the exclusion of Kyman’s
post-closing wages from commission. Nance, however, did object to the exclusion of a commission
on the lease of the real estate. Id. He stated “[i]f we sell or lease the real estate, C[antrell ]G[riffin

]B[uisness ]B[rokers] should get a commission.” Id. He stated that “[i]n either case, we are OK
licensed real estate agents and will help negotiate the sale or lease.” Id. He continued that he “had
told Karen we would handle the real estate in a separate agreement since its [sic] owned by a
different entity. Don’t see why we need to address in the business listing agreement.” Id.
On April 9, 2019, Jones emailed Nance and copied Kyman. He attached a revised listing
agreement which removed “any reference to the real estate,” stating that he understood Nance “will
be providing a separate agreement between an Oklahoma real estate broker and 506 Industrial Road,

LLC. Under such agreement, commission will be due upon sale of the real estate but no commission
due upon lease of the real estate.” Dkt. # 58-10, at 2. Jones and Nance then proceeded to discuss
whether commission would be owed on the sale of accounts receivable. Ultimately the parties
agreed that it would be excluded. Dkt. # 58-11, at 2.
Later that month, a business listing contract was executed (“listing contract”). Dkt. # 47-6.
The heading of each page of that document states “Cantrell-Griffin Business Brokers” above the text
“Business Listing Contract.” The first paragraph of the listing contract states:
“In consideration of the services of WRTGE-Commercial, LLC, through tis [sic]
CANTRELL-GRIFFIN BUSINESS BROKERS division hereinafter called ‘Agent,’
in selling, leasing or exchanging the stock or assets of the business described herein,
Karen Kyman, as the sole stockholder of Precision Communications, Inc. (PCI)
(herein, Kyman and PCI collectively called “Seller”) agrees that the Agent shall have
the exclusive right to sell the assets or the stock of PCI during the [12 month] term
. . .”
Id. at 1 (underline in original).
The listing contract states that the “gross offering price” would be $9,600,000, or such lesser
price or terms as the Seller may accept. Id. The listing contract also sets out the parameters for
payment of the agent. “Seller agrees to pay Agent’s full commission when and to the extent that
[s]eller receives the sale price, and [s]eller grants a security interest in said proceeds of the closing.

Seller agrees to pay [a]gent a professional fee of six percent (6%) of the gross amount of the sale
price (the ‘Gross Purchase Price’) . . . This fee shall not be less than $100,000.00. This shall include
partial sale of assets, an equity interest, or any method of transfer . . . .” Id. To the extent the seller
would receive the payment in installments, the contract provides that the “[a]gent’s fee due
hereunder shall be due on a pro rata basis.” Id. at 2.
The listing contract states that the real property, on which PCI operated at the time of the
listing contract’s execution, was not included in the gross offering price. Id. That property was not

owned by PCI. The listing contract states that “[a]ny listing agreement between 506 Industrial Road,
LLC, and the [a]gency will be by separate agreement.” Id.2
The final term in the listing contract states that the “written contract constitutes the entire
agreement concerning the subject matter hereof between the parties and supercedes any previous oral
agreements or understandings. This agreement may not be modified except in writing executed by
both the Seller and by the Agent.” Id. at 4.
On the last page of the listing contract, the signature blocks state that one contracting party
is “WRTCG-Commercial, an Arkansas Limited Liability Company through its Cantrell-Griffin

2 The parties agree that, at the time the listing contract was signed, it was mistakenly believed
that the property on which PCI operated was owned by 506 Industrial Road, LLC. However,
the real estate described in the listing agreement was actually owned by the Karen S. Kyman
Revocable Trust. Kyman serves as trustee of that trust.
5
Business Brokers Division,” and the other contracting party is “Precision Communications, Inc., an
Oklahoma corporation.” Dkt. # 47-6, at 4. Karen Kyman signed the contract on behalf of PCI.
On April 26, 2019, Nance emailed Kyman, attaching an Oklahoma real estate form listing
agreement and stating that he would “appreciate [Kyman] reviewing [it] and getting back to [him]

at [her] earliest convenience.” Dkt. # 75-7, at 2. The agreement attached described the property on
which PCI operates at 506 Industrial Road, in Grove, Oklahoma. Id. at 7.
On April 30, 2019, Nance responded to an inquiry from a private equity firm regarding PCI.
Dkt. # 75-4, at 6. In that email exchange, Nance explained the value presented by PCI and the
circumstances of the business. On May 1, 2019, Nance explained to the interested party that the
business with real estate was “valued at $10.2M by [Kyman’s] financial advisors.” Id. at 4. Nance
stated that the sale would probably need to be a “stock sale due to all the licenses and certifications

[the] company has.” Id. On May 6, 2019, Nance explained to the interested party that the real estate
had been appraised at $400,000 in 2018. On May 7, 2019, Kyman, after having seen the email
exchange with the interested party, wrote to Nance, stating that “just for clarification the property
was appraised in 2017 and I actually think he [sic] now would appraise between [$]450,000 and
[$]500,000 because since that time we completely remodeled the inside of the building and I also
added a nice storm shelter that holds 10 to 12 people.” Id. at 2.
On May 8, 2019, Kyman emailed Nance, stating “I haven’t forgotten about getting a signed
copy of the Property Listing Agreement to you but after I read through it this morning I had a few

questions for David Jones. As soon as I hear back from him, I’ll let you know.” Dkt. # 75-5, at 2.
Shortly after the listing agreement was signed, Nance began to advertise the business to
prospective buyers. The listing stated that the asset asking price was $10,400,000, which included
6
furniture, fixtures, equipment, inventory, and a tower. The listing states that real estate is not
included in the asking price, but that it had an estimated value of $550,000. Dkt. # 75-9, at 2. The
listing states that PCI’s facilities are rented, but that they are “available for purchase at appraised
value.” Id.
During the sale process, Kyman and PCI were represented by Richard Riddle. Dkt. ## 47,
at 5; 59, at 11. On July 28, 2019, Riddle sent an email to Kyman with the subject line “PCI Asset
Sale and Kyman Personal Goodwill Sale,” regarding a possible sale to Bo Byers. Dkt. # 58-17, at
2. Riddle attached three letters of intent (LOIs) , describing them as between a buyer and PCI (for
PC] assets), between the buyer and Kyman (for the sale of Kyman’s personal goodwill), and an LOI
for Kyman’s employment. The email states that there is a likelihood “that there will be Corporate
Goodwill belonging to PCI as well as the [p]ersonal [g]oodwill belonging to you.” Id.
Thereafter, Sean Wenger, an employee of Promise Three, LLC (Promise Three), learned of
the possibility of purchasing PCI. Nance connected Wenger to PCI. Dkt. ## 47, at at 11. On
November 7, 2019, Promise Three sent a letter of intent (LOI) to Karen Kyman. Dkt. # 58-14, at 2-
4. The letter summarized the principal terms to acquire PCI. Promise Three offered to pay PCI
$3,389,333 “cash at close,” with $6,610,670 in earn out payments, for a total purchase price of
$10,000,000. Id. The LOI stated that the offering purchase price included the real estate, that the
transaction would be structured as an asset sale, and that Kyman would “help Promise Three evaluate
and secure key managers post acquisition.” Id. The LOI proposed that Kyman would join the board
of directors through the earn out period with an option to stay on after that period, as well as consult
for Promise Three and “ensure a smooth transition for the PCI team.” Id. at 3. The LOI also

proposes a “10 year non-compete and non-solicitation signed by all PCI shareholders and key
management.” Id.
On November 11, 2019, Riddle emailed Kyman and copied Nance. In that email, Riddle
discussed the separation of enterprise good will and personal goodwill and noted that the structure
of personal goodwill was “very important” to Kyman for income tax purposes. Dkt. # 58-18, at 3.
On November 12, 2019, Nance emailed Kyman and Riddle in reference to the offer from
Promise Three. Dkt. # 75-6. Nance discussed a counter-offer and included notes for Riddle. Id. at
2. Those notes state “[rJeal estate available from [Kyman] at appraised value. Do you want an
updated appraisal? Didn’t you do all the office updated since the 2013 appraisal?” Id. The notes
also break down the “asset sale allocation” into PCI tangible assets and goodwill. Id. Goodwill is
further broken down into “Business Goodwill” and “KK Goodwill.” Id.
Kyman responded that day, stating that she wanted “a qualified appraiser to perform an up
to date appraisal on the property.” Id. She continued that “[a]s an option, [Promise Three] could
rent [the] property until they are ready to purchase and of course they will always have [the] first
opportunity to purchase property.” Id.
On December 10, 2019, Promise Three sent four additional LOIs to Kyman respectively
titled: “Personal Goodwill Letter of Intent,” “PCI Asset Purchase Letter of Intent,” “Employment
Agreement Letter of Intent,” and “Real Estate Letter of Intent.” The personal goodwill LOI
summarized “the principle [sic] terms by [Promise Three] to acquire all of the personal goodwill
owned by Karen Kyman (“Seller”) associated with [PCI].” Dkt.#98-1, at 1. The personal goodwill
LOI states that “70% of the aggregate enterprise goodwill owned by PCI and personal goodwill
owned by [Kyman] will be allocated to the sale of the personal goodwill by [Kyman] to [Promise

Three]. The parties shall determine the amount of [Kyman’s] personal goodwill using the residual
method of allocation as required under applicable Federal income tax law... .” Id.
The PCI Asset Purchase LOI proposes $3,750,000 cash at close for PCI, $600,000 for the real
estate, and approximately $6,507,000 in earn out payments. Id. at 4. The “[t]otal purchase price”
was stated as $10,932,000. Id. The real estate LOI proposes the sale of the real estate “used by
[PCI].” Id. at 10. All of the LOIs were executed by Kyman on December 16, 2019.
On March 13, 2020, Nance issued a draft invoice for brokering the sale of PCI’s assets to
Precision Communications, LLC (PCLLC), a new entity formed by Promise Three, LLC, to acquire
PCI’s assets. Nance explained that “[c]ommissions were calculated at 6% of the cash anticipated
to be received as we discussed when we first negotiated the listing.” Dkt. # 59-6, at 1. He included
in the draft invoice a commission for the sale of the real estate, as well as commission for the sale
of accounts receivable, equipment, and goodwill. Id. He acknowledged that”[oJur initial plan we
agreed to over a year ago was to list real estate separate from the business since you owned it
personally but you later decided not to sell it, so we didn’t complete the listing. Then I brought you
a buyer for it last fall and negotiated the sale of the business properties at appraised value which you
accepted.” Id.
On March 16, 2020, Kyman and PCI entered into an asset purchase agreement (APA) with
PCLLC. Dkt. ## 47, at 5; 59, at 11; 48-9. PCLLC also entered into a “Personal Goodwill Purchase
Agreement” with Kyman. Dkt. # 48-10.
On March 25, 2020, Riddle wrote to Nance regarding the draft invoice that Nance had
submitted on March 13. In that email, Riddle explained that the numbers had not been finalized as
of the date Nance had sent the invoice and stated “for that reason” he would not address the invoice.

Dkt. # 47-12, at 4. Riddle stated that at closing, due to various circumstances, “PCI agreed to pay
PCL[LC] a total of $1,875,066.45 . . . to cover the working capital needs of PCL[LC].” Id. Nance
replied, stating that he saw “nothing in the APA on related assets sold,” including real estate and
personal goodwill, and that he believed he was owed commission on those transactions as he brought
the buyer for those assets and negotiated the sale of them as well. Id. at 3. Nance asked that Riddle
acknowledge the payment obligation. Id.
On March 26, 2020, Riddle replied to Nance, stating that “the net amount received by PCI”
at closing was $1,374,933.55. Dkt. ## 47, at 5; 59, at 11. He stated that $1,398,382.45 remained
to be paid out with future earn-out payments. He did not address in the reply the sale of the real
estate, or the sale of Kyman’s personal goodwill. Neither party disputes that PCI received those
proceeds at closing. Dkt. ## 47, at 5; 59, at 11.
On April 22, 2020, plaintiff, WRTGC-Commercial, LLC, filed a complaint in this Court
asserting breach of contract claims (count 1), a claim for declaratory judgment (count 2); fraud
claims (count 3); and claims for quantum meruit (count 4) against Kyman and PCI.
In its motion for partial summary judgement, plaintiff argues that, under Oklahoma law, to
be entitled to partial summary judgment on this part of its claims it must establish there was a
contract between WRTGC and PCI, that PCI breached the contract, and that WRTGC suffered
damages as a direct result of the breach. Dkt. # 47, at 6 (citing Okla. Unif. Jury Instr. 23.1). Plaintiff
argues that it is evident from the face of the contract that the parties are Cantrell-Griffin Business
Brokers (a fictitious name for plaintiff) and PCI. Id. at 7. Plaintiff argues it has pointed to
provisions in the contract that require payment of certain amounts upon closing, and that the non-

10

payment is a breach of those material provisions. Id. at 7-8. Finally, plaintiff argues it has been
damaged it by the non-payment in the amount of $82,496.01. Id. at 8.
Defendants respond (Dkt. # 59) that Nance breached the “duty of perfect good faith” owed
to PCI, by misrepresenting whether the real estate sale was critical to the sale of PCI, and so “Nance
and his [p]rincipal are [b]arred from [a]ny [r]ecovery.” Dkt. #59, at 19-20.
Defendants also assert that Nance distributed materials that stated he worked for Cantrell-
Griffin Business Brokers, LLC, and so the listing agreement was actually with that entity.
Defendants argue that, as a result, plaintiff is not the true contracting entity, and that the actual
contracting entity (Cantrell-Griffin Business Brokers, LLC) is not licensed to conduct business in
Oklahoma. As a result, the actual contracting entity is barred from recovery because conducting
business in Oklahoma, which is a criminal misdemeanor, and “[c]ontracts in furtherance of a crime
are void under Oklahoma law.” Id. at 21. Finally, defendants argue that Nance and his principal are
guilty of spoilation of evidence, because they have removed the LLC designation from
Cantrell-Griffin Business Brokers materials in an attempt to destroy evidence. Id. at 24.
Plaintiff replies (Dkt. # 75) that it is the true contracting entity, and that it is licensed to do
business in Oklahoma. Dkt. # 75, at 14. Plaintiff also asserts that the alleged breach of the duty of
“perfect good faith” by Nance does not bar plaintiff’ □ recovery. Id. at 13-14. Plaintiff further argues
that the doctrine of in pari delicto is not applicable to this situation. Id. at 15-16. Finally, plaintiff
states that spoilation does not preclude plaintiff's recovery and the motion for sanctions based on
alleged spoilation is not properly before the Court.
In defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. # 48), defendants argue that each of the
four claims against Kyman must be dismissed as the contract for commission does not include

11

Kyman as an individual, and therefore does not include the sale of her personal goodwill. Further,
defendants assert that plaintiff has not demonstrated the existence of fraud. Dkt. # 48, at 7-10.
Defendants also argues that the quantum meruit claims should be denied against PCI because there
is a written contract that forecloses that cause of action. Id, at 17. Defendants finally assert that the
listing contract between plaintiff and PCI is unenforceable as plaintiff is not the contracting entity,
and because the true contracting entity is a non-existent LLC doing business in Oklahoma without
a license. Id. at 18-21. Finally, defendants argue that Nance and his principal “are guilty of
spoilation.” Id. at 23.
In response, plaintiff asserts that it has valid contractual claims against Kyman under the
listing contract, as circumstances indicate that she intended to sign the listing contract as an
individual. Dkt. #58, at 13. Plaintiff states that none of defendants’ affirmative defenses precludes
recovery on the breach of contract claim. Plaintiff also argues that the Court should enter a
declaratory judgment in favor of plaintiff that a commission is owed on the amount paid under the
APA, as well as amounts paid under the personal goodwill purchase agreement. Id. at 16. Plaintiff
also asserts that it has stated valid claims against Kyman for quantum meruit and constructive fraud
based on brokering the sale of her goodwill and real estate. Id. at 17. Plaintiff maintains that it is
licensed to do business in Oklahoma and is the proper party to the listing contract. Id, at 23. Finally,
plaintiff argues that a motion for sanctions based on alleged spoilation should be denied as it was
improperly brought in the summary judgment motion. Id. at 25.
II. Legal Standard
Summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 is appropriate where there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

12

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 250 (1986); Kendall v. Watkins, 998 F.2d 848, 850 (10th Cir. 1993). The plain language of
Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon
motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an
element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.
Celotex, 477 U.S. at 317. “Movants for summary judgment bear the initial burden of demonstrating
the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.”
Silverstein v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 559 F. App’x 739, 752 (10th Cir. 2014)’; see also Adler v.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 670-71 (10th Cir. 1998). “Where the record taken as a whole
could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no ‘genuine issue for
trial.’” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986) (citations
omitted). “The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff’ s position will be
insufficient; there must be evidence on which the [trier of fact] could reasonably find for the
plaintiff.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252. In essence, the inquiry for the Court is “whether the evidence
presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that
one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Id. at 250. In its review, the Court construes the record
in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment. Garratt v. Walker, 164 F.3d
1249, 1251 (10th Cir. 1998).
As defendants have moved for summary judgment on all claims, the Court will address the
claims in the manner in which they were alleged in the amended complaint.

3 This and other unpublished decisions are not precedential, but they are cited herein for their
persuasive value. See Fed. R. App. 32.1; 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
13

III. Breach of Contract
To prevail on a breach of contract claim, plaintiff must show: “1) formation of a contract;
2) a breach of the contract; and 3) actual damages suffered from the breach.” Coen v. SemGroup
Energy Partners G.P., LLC., 310 P.3d 657, 666 (Okla. Civ. App. 2013) (citing Digital Design Grp.,

Inc. v. Info. Builders, Inc., 24 P.3d 834, 843 (Okla. 2001)).
a. Contracting Parties to the Listing Contract
Plaintiff states that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to any of the elements above.
However, defendants predominantly challenge whether plaintiff is even the appropriate contracting
party, as plaintiff’s LLC name appears nowhere in the listing contract.
Under Oklahoma law, to form a valid contract the parties must be capable of contracting, they
must consent, the contract must be lawful, and there must be sufficient cause or consideration. Okla.

Stat. tit. 15, § 2. Plaintiff asserts that both parties were capable, consented to the listing contract, the
object of the contract was the agreement to retain someone to sell the stock or assets of PCI, and that
there was mutual consideration. Dkt. # 47, at 6. PCI does not dispute that PCI is capable of
contracting, or that the object of the contract (retaining a broker) is lawful. PCI also does not dispute
that there was mutual consideration. However, defendants challenge whether plaintiff is the proper
party to the contract, and whether Kyman, as an individual, is a party to the contract.
First, the Court must determine whether plaintiff is a party to the listing contract. Plaintiff
asserts that it is the appropriate contracting party by and through its agent Stewart Nance of its

Cantrell-Griffin Business Brokers division. Dkt. # 47, at 6-7. Defendants argue that plaintiff’s
name–WRTGC-Commercial, LLC– does not appear in the contract, so it is not a party to the listing
agreement. Defendants also assert that Nance represented to PCI that he worked for Cantrell-Griffin
14
Business Brokers, LLC. Defendants argue that, because Cantrell-Griffin Business Brokers, LLC is
not licensed to do business in Oklahoma, the contract is void as “in furtherance of a crime,”
specifically, the misdemeanor of conducting business without a license in Oklahoma. Dkt. # 59, at
20-21, 23-24. Defendants state that, as a result, the listing contract is void under the doctrine of in

pari delicto.
In Oklahoma, “[i]f it appears from the allegations and proof that the obligation sued upon
was intended to be the obligation of the corporation sued, a recovery will not be defeated by reason
of a misnomer alone. Such a misnomer of the corporation will not prevent a recovery ‘either by or
against the corporation in its true name, provided its identity with that intended by the parties to the
instrument be averred in the pleadings and apparent in the proof.’” Oklahoma Operating Co. v.
Shipley, 43 P.2d 445, 447 (Okla. 1935). “It is enough if the identity of the corporation is

unmistakable, either from the face of the instrument or from the averments and proof.” Id.; see also
HM of Topeka, LLC v. Indian Country Mini Mart, 236 P.3d 535, 539 (Kan. App. 2010) (holding that
“misidentification of a contracting party's legal name in a contract does not, in and of itself, prohibit
any party to that contract from enforcing it as long as the entity's true identity is reasonably clear or

15
can be ascertained by sufficient evidence and the other parties to the contract were not, or were not
likely to have been, misled by the misidentification.”).*
The evidence shows that WRTGC-Commercial, LLC is an entity incorporated as an LLC in
Arkansas (Dkt. # 47-1), is licensed to do business in Oklahoma (Dkt. # 47-2), and has duly registered
the fictitious name of Cantrell-Griffin Business Brokers (Dkt. # 47-3). Plaintiff has introduced
evidence that Nance is an independent contractor for plaintiff, and defendants fail to introduce
evidence that he is not. Plaintiff WRTGC-Commercial, LLC has shown that it was heavily involved
in the contracting process, through Nance. Further, the name “Cantrell-Griffin Business Brokers”
appears no fewer than six times on the contract. It is not misspelled and it does not bear the LLC
designation. Dkt. # 47-6.
Meanwhile, neither defendant shows (or even contends) that PCI intended to enter into a
contract with either “WRTCG-Commercial, LLC” or “WRTGE-Commercial, LLC” or that

‘ Other jurisdictions similarly hold that “the misnomer of a corporation generally will not be
treated by the courts as material if the identity of the corporation is reasonably clear or can
be ascertained by sufficient evidence.” HM of Topeka, LLC, 236 P.3d at 539 (citing 6
Fletcher Cyclopedia of the Law of Private Corporations § 2444 (2005)); see also Cheese
Depot, Inc. v. Sirob Imports, Inc., No. 14-CV-1727, 2018 WL 1801792, at *5—6 (N.D. IIL.
Apr. 16, 2018) (“[T]here is a general concurrence of modern authority to the effect that a
misnomer or variance from the precise name of the corporation in a grant or obligation by
or to it is not material if the identity of the corporation is unmistaken either from the face of
the instrument of from the averments and proof.”) (quoting Malleable Iron Range Co. v.
Pusey, 148 Ill. App. 344, 347 (Il. App. 1909), aff'd 91 N.E. 51 (Ill. 1910)); Sunstone at
Colorado Springs Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. White, 56 P.3d 127, 130 (Colo. App. 2002)
(concluding that “the variation or misnomer in plaintiff's name as set forth in the [legal
document was] immaterial” in part because “there [was] no evidence that the misnomer ...
frustrated the identification of plaintiff or caused confusion to defendants”); In re D & B
Construction of Westchester, Inc., 2008 WL 4890945, at *8 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nov. 3, 2008) (If
the entity of the corporation can be ascertained by the instrument itself, the misnomer 1s held
unimportant; but, if not, evidence may be introduced ... to establish what particular corporate
entity was intended.”).
16

“WRTCG-Commercial, LLC” or “WRTGE-Commercial, LLC” even exist. Defendants do not show
that they were misled by either of those misnamed/misspelled entities, let alone that they were
materially misled by those names. Where, “it d[oes] not appear that anyone was, or likely could have
been, misled by the incorrect designation” a court will find that the misnomer does not prevent
enforcement of the contract. HM of Topeka, LLC, 236 P.3d at 539.
Given plaintiffs evidence demonstrating proof of ownership of the Cantrell-Griffin Business
Brokers name, and the complete absence of any evidence of malfeasance regarding the naming of
the entity in the contract, the Court finds that the parties intended that the named LLCs in the
contract-“WRTGE-Commercial, LLC” (on the first page of the contract) and “WRTCG-
Commercial, LLC” (on the last page of the contract)—were intended to identify plaintiff WRTGC-
Commercial, LLC. “Misidentification of a contracting party’s legal name in a contract does not, in
and of itself, prohibit any party to that contract from enforcing it as long as the entity's true identity
is reasonably clear or can be ascertained by sufficient evidence and the other parties to the contract
were not, or were not likely to have been, misled by the misidentification. Id. at 540. Accordingly,
the Court finds that plaintiff is properly a party to the contract.
Defendants also assert that Kyman is not a party to the contract, and thus cannot be liable for
breach of contract. Dkt. # 48, at 11-12. Plaintiff responds that, if the Court looks to the
circumstances surrounding the agreement, it is apparent the parties intended that Kyman would be
a party to the contract. Dkt. #58, at 17. The essence of the parties dispute is whether Kyman signed
the contract as the president of PCI, or whether she also signed as the sole shareholder of PCI stock
and as an individual.

17

“The primary goal of contract interpretation is to determine and give effect to the intention
of the parties at the time the contract was made. In arriving at the parties’ intent, the terms of the
instrument are to be given their plain and ordinary meaning. Where the language of a contract is clear
and unambiguous on its face, that which stands expressed within its four corners must be given
effect. A contract should receive a construction that makes it reasonable, lawful, definite and capable
of being carried into effect if it can be done without violating the intent of the parties.” State ex rel.
Doak v. Red Rock Ins. Co., 444 P.3d 493, 495 (Okla. Civ. App. 2019) (quoting May v. Mid-Century
Ins. Co., 151 P.3d 132 (Okla. 2006) (footnotes omitted).
Kyman is identified as the “sole shareholder” of PCI in the first section of the contract. Dkt.
# 48-8, at 1. “Kyman and PCI” are defined “collectively” as “Seller.” Id. In the eighth section of
the contract, “Seller agrees to pay [a]gent’s full commission.” Id. However, Kyman’s signature
appears on the contract below the words “Precision Communications, Inc., and Oklahoma
Corporation,” and above the signature line for “Karen Kyman, President.” Id. at 3.
From the face of the document it does not appear as though Kyman, the individual, intended
to be held personally liable for the corporate liabilities of PCI. The document refers to Kyman only
in her capacities as sole shareholder and president of PCI. Plaintiff has not explained how Kyman,
as the shareholder, could be held liable for PCI’s failure to pay a commission on the sale of PCI’s
assets. In Oklahoma, shareholders are not primarily liable for corporate liabilities. Okla. Stat. tit. 18,
§ 1124. Without any statement as to how Kyman, as sole shareholder, is a proper party, the Court
finds that the breach of contract action against Kyman should be dismissed. Cf, Fanning v. Brown,
85 P.3d 841, 846 (Okla. 2004) (holding that “[c]ourts may disregard the corporate entity and hold
stockholders personally liable for corporate obligations or corporate conduct under the legal

18

doctrines of fraud, alter ego and when necessary to protect the rights of third persons and accomplish
jJustice.”). Accordingly, Kyman asa sole shareholder, is not a proper party to the breach of the listing
contract claim.
To the extent plaintiff seeks to hold Kyman liable as an individual, the Court does not find
that any evidence presented plausibly demonstrates that Kyman intended to be personally liable for
the corporate obligations of PCI. Plaintiff also does not allege fraud in the formation of the listing
contract. “A unilateral mistake by one party, in the absence of evidence of inequitable conduct by
the other party, does not justify reformation under Oklahoma law.” Fid. & Deposit Co. of Maryland
v. Riess Fam., LLC, No. 16-CV-270-GKF-FHM, 2018 WL 2088757, at *11 (N.D. Okla. May 4,
2018).
Plaintiff has not shown that Kyman is liable as a shareholder under the listing contract, and
plaintiff has not shown that Kyman intended to be personally liable for the performance of PCI. As
a result, the Court finds that the breach of contract claim for the non-payment of a commission under
the listing contract cannot be maintained against Kyman as an individual or sole shareholder.
Therefore, defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the breach of contract claim against
Kyman is granted.
b. PCI’s Affirmative Defenses
Plaintiff argues that it has shown under Oklahoma law that the commission was due to it at
the time of the closing, when the initial payment was made to PCI. PCI argues that no commission
is due because Nance breached his fiduciary duties of good faith and loyalty when brokering the deal
and engaged in false misrepresentation. Dkt. # 59, at 16. The Court next addresses defendants’

19

arguments regarding actions of plaintiff or Nance that make non-payment of commission
appropriate.
First, defendants assert that Nance breached his fiduciary duties to PCI, specifically his duty
of loyalty and his duty of good faith. Dkt. # 59, at 16-17. Defendants assert that plaintiff, through

Nance, misrepresented whether the sale of the real estate on which PCI operated was material to the
transaction to both Promise Three, LLC and to PCI. Id. Plaintiff responds that PCI has not stated
a valid claim for breach of fiduciary duty to PCI, where PCI had no interest in the real estate portion
of the transaction and, thus, could not sell it. Dkt. # 75, at 13.
As an initial matter, PCI cites no case wherein a breach of fiduciary duty serves as an
affirmative defense to performance of a contract. PCI has never asserted a counterclaim of breach
of fiduciary duty. PCI cannot show that a fiduciary duty was breached in relation to the sale of real

estate that it did not own. Defendant Kyman has not asserted a counterclaim that plaintiff breached
any fiduciary duties to her, as the trustee of the trust that owns the property or as the owner of her
goodwill.
Even if the Court were to construe PCI’s unstated claim for breach of fiduciary duty as an
affirmative defense based on fraudulent misrepresentation, PCI’s claim still fails. Defendants’
general assertions--that false representations made while brokering a deal for real estate that PCI
does not own somehow voids PCI’s business listing agreement and relieves it of its obligation to pay
any commission on a valid sale of PCI assets, Kyman’s goodwill, and Kyman’s trust’s real estate--

are not supported by law. Dkt. # 48, at 21.
“Fraud in the inducement is defined as a ‘misrepresentation as to the terms, quality or other
aspects of a contractual relation, venture or other transaction that leads a person to agree to enter into

20
the transaction with a false impression or understanding of the risks, duties or obligations she has
undertaken.’” Harkrider v. Posey, 24 P.3d 821, 827 (Okla. 2000) (citation omitted). Oklahoma law
distinguishes between contracts that are void or voidable due to a misrepresentation made before the
contract is entered. Glob. One Eng’g, LLC v. SiteMaster, Inc., No. 15-CV-0583-CVE-FHM, 2017

WL 3189892, at *3 (N.D. Okla. July 27, 2017). “A contract entered into by a party on the basis of
a misrepresentation about the nature of the contract itself is void and the contract is a legal nullity.”
Id. “[W]here a contract is entered into on the basis of a misrepresentation which goes to the
contract’s inducement, as a notion distinct from its nature, the tainted agreement is rendered merely
voidable.” Harkrider, 24 P.3d at 827. As PCI does not (and likely cannot) assert that any statement
about the real estate affects the essence of the contract itself (i.e., that is contracting for the exclusive
listing of a business), PCI’s only argument is that the contract is voidable as a result of any alleged

misrepresentation.
“A contract voidable for fraud in the inducement creates a valid contractual relationship,
which subsists in contemplation of law until the parties are relieved of their obligation by a decree
of rescission.” Id. Therefore, in order to be relieved of the requirement to perform the contract, PCI
must show that the fraud in the inducement requires rescission. Rescission is governed by Okla.
Stat. tit. 15, § 235, which provides that rescission “can be accomplished only by the use, on the part
of the party rescinding, of reasonable diligence to . . . restore to the other party everything of value
which he has received from him under the contract; or must offer to restore the same, upon condition

that such party shall do likewise . . .” Defendants do not seek rescission of the listing contract.

21
Instead, without legal authority, they appear to contend that the remedy in this instance is non-
payment of commission. It is not.5
Because PCI has not raised a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether Nance
breached a fiduciary duty to it, and because PCI has not shown that it had any cause or basis to rely

on information regarding the sale of real estate that it did not own, PCI has not shown that it was
fraudulently induced to enter into the listing contract for PCI’s assets or the sale of PCI’s business
assets to PCLLC.
Next, defendants assert, repeatedly, that Cantrell-Griffin Business Brokers held itself out as
an LLC, and so Cantrell-Griffin Business Brokers is estopped from denying the existence of that
entity. Dkt. # 59, at 22-23. To support that assertion, PCI submits exhibits that show certain
Cantrell-Griffin Business Brokers materials include the LLC designation. See, e.g., Dkt. ## 48-6;

48-7; 48-12.
PCI does not explain, at any point, how the representation of Cantrell-Griffin Business
Brokers as an LLC was relied upon to the detriment of PCI. Further, arguments to that effect would
ring hollow where Cantrell-Griffin Business Brokers is actually a division of an LLC. Assertions
by PCI that Cantrell-Griffin Business Brokers’s status as an LLC was material to the formation of
the contract are further eviscerated by the fact that PCI signed the contract with Cantrell-Griffin
Business Brokers by and through another LLC. The agreement does not state anywhere that
Cantrell-Griffin Business Brokers is an LLC and, yet, PCI entered the agreement. Therefore, because

5 Further, the voidable contract at issue here would not be the business listing contract. The
voidable contracts would be those entered into based on the “false representations,” i.e.,
those for the sale of the business, Kyman’s trust’s real estate, and Kyman’s personal
goodwill.
22
PCI does not allege that dealing with an LLC was material to inducing PCI to contract with that
entity, defendants’ arguments regarding any representation of Cantrell-Griffin Business Brokers as
an LLC are unavailing. PCI has not demonstrated that a genuine dispute of material fact exists as
to whether the LLC status was a material term and that it relied on it in the formation of the contract.

The Court therefore finds that plaintiff has shown that there was a valid contract between PCI
and plaintiff regarding the exclusive opportunity to broker the sale of assets of PCI, that there was
a breach of that contract by non-payment of a commission, and that it suffered actual damages.
Because PCI raises no genuine disputes of material fact in response to plaintiff’s motion for partial
summary judgment, the Court finds that it should be granted as to plaintiff’s claim for breach of the
listing contract.
c. PCI’s Assets

The parties do not seriously dispute that the APA governs the sale of Kyman’s trust’s real
estate, or that PCI’s assets include the real estate on which PCI operated. Such real estate was owned
by a separate entity and is not governed by the listing contract. In fact, the contract expressly
excludes the real estate. Dkt. # 48-8, at 1. As a result, any breach of contract claim against PCI or
Kyman for a commission on the real estate sold to PCLLC is denied as a matter of law.
The only remaining issue with respect to the contractual commission owed by PCI is whether
Kyman’s goodwill is properly considered an asset of PCI under the listing contract. Defendants
argue that plaintiff has no entitlement to a commission on the sale of Kyman’s goodwill because

Kyman’s goodwill is a personal asset, and thus not subject to the listing contract for brokering the
sale of PCI’s assets. Dkt. # 48, at 13. In support of that contention, defendants cite numerous cases
where Oklahoma courts have found that personal goodwill is not a marketable asset in divorce
proceedings under Oklahoma law. Id. at 14.
Plaintiff argues that the facts and circumstances surrounding the formation of the listing
contract make it evident that Kyman’s goodwill was meant to be included in the overall value of the
business, as appraised. Dkt. #58, at 18. Plaintiff states that the parties cannot have intended that
over $5,000,000 of the $9,600,000 contractual appraisal value, which was based on earnings before
interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA), is now fairly attributed to the non-PCI
asset of Kyman’s personal goodwill. Plaintiff further states that it is evident that neither party
contemplated the value of personal goodwill as “[t]here is no exception or carve out in the agreement
for personal goodwill and the issue of personal goodwill was not discussed prior [to] the execution
of the [a]greement.” Id. Further, plaintiffnotes that during the negotiations Riddle grouped personal
goodwill under the umbrella of the “[g]eneral [g]oodwill of the business as a whole.” Dkt. # 58-18,
at 3.
Courts generally recognize two types of goodwill: enterprise goodwill and personal goodwill.
See, e.g., In re Marriage of Dorsey, 373 P.3d 1084, 1088 (Okla. Civ. App. 2016); see also May v.
May, 589 S.E.2d 536, 541 (W. Va. 2003); Peterson v. Jackson, 253 P.3d 1096, 1106-07 (Utah Ct.
App. 2011). The value of goodwill “should be determined either by an agreement or by its fair
market value.” Traczyk v. Traczyk, 891 P.2d 1277, 1280 (Okla. 1995) (citations omitted).
In Oklahoma, “goodwill of a business is defined as ‘the expectation of continued public
patronage,’ and is considered property transferable like any other property.” Okla. Stat. tit. 60, §
315; see also Freeling v. Wood, 361 P.2d 1061, 1063 (Okla. 1961) (“The ‘good will’ value of any
business is the value that results from the probability that old customers will continue to trade with
an established concern.... [Such] good will of a business may be sold.”)

24

Under Oklahoma law, personal goodwill has not been fully defined. However, Oklahoma
courts certainly recognize that the personal goodwill of an individual is a separate asset, not owned
by a business. Traczyk, 891 P.2d at 1280; In re Marriage of Dorsey, 373 P.3d at 1088. Other
persuasive authority holds that personal goodwill can be sold as an asset separate and apart from a

business asset. In Estate of Adell v. Comm’r, 108 T.C.M. (CCH) 107 (T.C. 2014), the United States
Tax Court found that “[a] key employee may personally create and own goodwill independent of the
corporate employer by developing client relationships.” 108 T.C.M. (CCH) 107 (T.C. 2014) (citing
Martin Ice Cream Co. v. Commissioner, 110 T.C. 189, 207–208 (T.C. 1998)). In that case, the court
explained that “[t]he corporation may benefit from using the personally developed goodwill while
the key employee works for the entity, but the corporation does not own the goodwill and therefore
it is not considered a corporate asset.” Id. “The employee may . . . transfer any personal goodwill

to the employer through a covenant not to compete or other agreement that transfers the relationships
to the employer.” Id. “Absent such an agreement, the employer cannot freely use the asset and the
value of the goodwill should not be attributed to the corporation.” Id.; see also Bross Trucking, Inc.
v. Comm’r, 107 T.C.M. (CCH) 1528 (T.C. 2014). In light of this authority, this Court finds that, in
certain non-legal professions, personal goodwill is a personal, and saleable, asset. Indeed, the IRS
provides for it as such. As a result, in absence of an agreement to the contrary, Kyman’s personal
goodwill is not an asset of PCI as a matter of law. Kyman was within her rights to sell her personal
goodwill, and the Court will not read the agreement for the sale of PCI’s assets to include Kyman’s

goodwill.

25
Ill. Declaratory Judgment
Under the contract terms, plaintiff is due 6% of “the gross amount of the sale price” of the
topic of the agreement—namely, the “assets... of PCI.” The contract further provides that “[s]eller
agrees to pay [a]gent’s full commission when and to the extent that [s]eller receives the sale price,
and [s]eller grants a security interest in said proceeds of the closing. Seller agrees to pay [a]gent a
professional fee of six percent (6%) of the gross amount of the sale price (the ‘Gross Purchase
Price’)... This fee shall not be less than $100,000.00. This shall include partial sale of assets, an
equity interest, or any method of transfer...” Dkt. #47-6, at 1. To the extent the seller receives the
payment in installments, the contract provides that the “[a]gent’s fee due hereunder shall be due on
a pro rata basis.” Id. at 2.
At closing “the net amount received by PCI” of non-excluded assets was $1,374,933.55. Dkt.
## 47, at 5; 59, at 11. Therefore, at closing, plaintiff was due 6% of that amount under the listing
contract, or $82,496.01.
IV. Quantum Meruit
Defendants move for summary judgment on all claims made against Kyman on the basis that
she is not a party to the listing contract. Dkt. #48, at 11-13. Though the Court agrees that there is
no breach of the listing contract properly stated against Kyman, that does not mean that Kyman is
not a proper party to this action. Plaintiff asserts claims for relief against her that do not depend on
whether she is a party to the listing contract, namely fraud and quantum meruit. Specifically,

26

plaintiff’s claims against Kyman include a claim for quantum meruit for brokering the sale of her
real estate, and a claim for quantum meruit for brokering the sale of Kyman’s personal goodwill.6
Under the common law doctrine of quantum meruit, where “a person performs services
without a written contract, the law implies an agreement to pay what is reasonable, meaning thereby

what he reasonably deserves.” Brown v. Wrightsman, 51 P.2d 761, 763 (Okla. 1935). A quantum
meruit claim “applies only where there is no express contract.” McCurdy Group v. Am. Biomedical
Group, Inc., 9 F. App’x 822, 827 (10th Cir. 2001) (quoting Brown, 51 P.2d at 763). This claim
requires that no written contract exist between the parties.
Defendant Kyman moved for summary judgment on the quantum meruit claims against her
on the basis that she was not a party to the contract. This argument is nonsensical, as the claim
expressly prohibits the existence of a written contract. With no basis to dismiss these claims, the

Court finds denial of summary judgment appropriate as to the claims for quantum meruit stated
against Kyman. However, as the Court has found a valid contract between PCI and plaintiff for a
commission on the sale of PCI’s assets, the claim for quantum meruit against PCI fails as a matter
of law as the real estate and personal goodwill of Kyman are not assets of PCI.

6 Kyman appears to have been introduced to Precision Three through Nance. No party has
shown there is agreement to list real estate owned by the Karen S. Kyman Revocable Trust
and no party has shown that there was an agreement to list personal goodwill of Kyman. As
a result, it is likely that breach of contract claims as to these assets are unlikely to be
successful. However, under a theory of quantum meruit, plaintiff may still show that a
commission is owed for brokering those transactions.
27
V. Fraud
To state a claim for constructive fraud against Kyman or PCI, plaintiff must show
(1) That the defendant owed plaintiff a duty of full disclosure. This duty could be part
of a general fiduciary duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff. This duty could
also arise, even though it might not exist in the first instance, once a defendant
voluntarily chooses to speak to plaintiff about a particular subject matter;
(2) That the defendant misstated a fact or failed to disclose a fact to plaintiff;
(3) That the defendant's misstatement or omission was material;
(4) That plaintiff relied on defendant's material misstatement or omission; and
(5) That plaintiff suffered damages as a result of defendant’s material misstatement
or omission.
Specialty Beverages, L.L.C. v. Pabst Brewing Co., 537 F.3d 1165, 1180-81 (10th Cir. 2008) (quoting
Lillard v. Stockton, 267 F. Supp. 2d 1081, 1113 (N.D. Okla. 2003) (applying Oklahoma law).
“There is no requirement, however, that the plaintiff prove that the defendant acted with the intent
to deceive.” Id. (citing State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Lloyd, 787 P.2d 855, 860 n.16 (Okla. 1990);
Doerr v. Henry, 806 P.2d 669, 673 (Okla. Civ. App. 1991)).
Defendants assert that plaintiff cannot establish the elements of a claim of fraud. Dkt. # 48,
at 19. Plaintiff responds that “the fraud claim is based on a concealment of information by
defendants.” Dkt. # 58, at 20. Plaintiff argues that constructive fraud applies here because
defendants “discussed goodwill with Nance but did not disclose that their intention was to exclude
from goodwill the personal goodwill.” Id. at 20-21. Further, plaintiffs assert that Riddle conveyed

that personal goodwill was part of the “general goodwill” of the business. Id. at 21. Nance,
according to plaintiff, relied on that understanding when he presented the concept to Promise Three
and obtained their agreement based on those terms. Id. It is evident that he believed the goodwill
28
was part of the sale he brokered by the invoice he later sent to defendants, seeking compensation
based on the sale of PCI assets, Kyman’s real estate, and Kyman’s goodwill. Id.; Dkt. # 59-6, at 1.
The above facts demonstrate that defendants voluntarily brought up personal goodwill with
Nance and discussed it with him. The facts also demonstrate that, at a minimum, defendants failed

to disclose that they did not believe they owed a commission to plaintiff on the sale of Kyman’s
goodwill. The materiality of that omission was demonstrated where it comprised approximately half
of a sales price that, before the insertion of personal goodwill, had been predominantly based on
EBITDA. Additionally, plaintiff has presented evidence that plaintiff relied on defendants’ material
misstatement or omission in the form of his emails showing that Nance grouped the personal
goodwill of Kyman under general goodwill, much like Riddle did. Plaintiff clearly demonstrates that
the anticipated commission was greatly reduced by the omission.

Because plaintiff has pointed to specific evidence that creates a genuine dispute of material
fact as to whether PCI or Kyman or both (both represented by Riddle) are liable for constructive
fraud, the Court denies the motion for summary judgment as to this claim for relief.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment
(Dkt. # 47) is granted, and plaintiff is entitled to a partial judgment against PCI for a 6%
commission on the sale of PCI assets, in the amount of $82,496.01 (6% of the total amount that was
attributed to PCI assets).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. # 48)
is granted in part as to the breach of contract claim against Kyman, the declaratory judgment claim
against Kyman, and the quantum meruit claim against PCI for the sale of its assets; and denied in
part as to the breach of contract claim against PCI, the declaratory judgment claim against PCI, the
29
claims of fraud against PCI and Kyman, and the quantum meruit claims against Kyman for the sale
of her personal goodwill and the real estate owned by the Karen S. Kyman revocable trust.
DATED this 27th day of August, 2021.

30

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10386770. Public record. Not legal advice.