David Humphreys & Luke Wallace, Esq., Biography

Humphreys Wallace Humphreys P.C.
Consumer Advocates-Trial Lawyers
1724 East 15th Street
Tulsa, OK 74120
http://www.hwh-law.com
luke@hwh-law.com
david@hwh-law.com
Tel. (918)-747-5300

David Humphreys & Luke Wallace practice law with Tanya Humphreys in the firm Humphreys Wallace Humphreys, P.C., http://hwh-law.com, in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The firm represents people who have been defrauded in consumer transactions, including credit, insurance, auto fraud, identity theft and predatory lending. The firm also represents business interests that have been harmed by unfair or anti-competitive business practices. In addition to being licensed by the Oklahoma Supreme Court, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma and the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, David and Luke have been admitted to practice pro hac vice in state and federal courts across the United States, including Texas, Kansas, California, Nevada, Illinois and elsewhere.

David and Luke are graduates of the Gerry Spence Trial Lawyers College, Dubois, WY. In 2004, the college recognized both of them as the Warrior of the Year for the 18-state South Central region of the country.

In 2002, The National Association of Consumer Advocates awarded them the Trial Advocates of the Year Award.

David and Luke are frequently asked to train other lawyers in the areas of trial skills and consumer law. They speak to national, state and local bar associations on identity theft, false credit reporting, predatory lending, automobile fraud, trial techniques and maximizing damages in consumer law cases.

David and Luke are founding members of the Oklahoma Coalition of Consumer Advocates, a 501(c)(4) issue advocacy group that speaks for ordinary Oklahomans at the State Capitol.

Winning Results

December 2004
$1.765 Million Jury Verdict
This case represents the first ever jury trial verdict in a predatory lending case against an installment lender engaged in fraudulent loan flipping scheme. The jury returned a verdict of $1.75 million in punitive damages to punish Security Finance and to deter other predatory lenders.

September 2003
$113,000 Jury Verdict Plus Rescission and Attorney Fees
Riverside Nissan sold a used vehicle with a transmission it knew was defective without disclosing the information to its customer. Riverside claimed it sold the car AS-IS, NO WARRANTY. Jury returned a verdict for actual damages of $13,700 and punitive damages of $100,000. Trial court rescinded the transaction and entered an award for attorney fees. Total recovery for client of approximately $200,000.

November 2002
$200,000 Judgment
Jury verdict for insurance bad faith on failure to pay approximately $14,000 in medical expenses claimed due on watercraft policy. Judgment rendered for our clients, including attorney fees and interest, brought judgment total to more than $200,000.

February 2002
$1.35 Million Jury Verdict
$1.35 million verdict on behalf of a consumer sued by lender on debt consumer did not owe. Client was a victim of identity theft and false credit reporting, and evidence at trial established that lender knew this before filing suit.

October 2001
$310,000 Jury Verdict
Verdict against statewide installment lender who over garnished and overcharged low income customers in a business practice. Our client was overcharged about $110.00 but evidence showed hundreds of others were overcharged as well.

October 2000
$3.0 Million Jury Verdict
$3.0 million judgment on jury verdict against Illinois-based health insurer for wrongful delay in paying and refusal to pay $3,000.00 in medical expenses.

June 2000
$115,000 Judgment
$115,000 judgment on jury verdict for consumer against car dealer for selling lemon laundered vehicle without proper disclosures.

November 1999
$65,000 Judgment
$65,000 judgment on jury verdict for consumer who purchased used vehicle on "spot delivery." Before dealer had financing approved, dealer sold consumer's trade-in and thereafter substituted older, higher mileage vehicle for consumer's trade-in.

Published Decisions

The firm has served as counsel in many important or ground-breaking, published decisions that have created legal precedent to benefit the firm's clients and the public interest.

Converse v. American Reliable Ins. Co., _OBJ_,_P.3d_ Nov 9, 2004
The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals affirmed a jury's verdict of $100,000 for insured and insured's son. The opinion holds American Reliable Insurance Company responsible for insurance bad faith, even if the insureds were unable to prove that they had a valid claim for benefits under the insurance policy. The insureds obtained a verdict finding insurance bad faith against American Reliable based upon a failure to perform a good faith investigation of their claim for medical expenses following a watercraft accident. The insureds contended that the insurance agent told them, when the policy was sold, that the policy provided coverage for medical expenses, when the written policy, received after the loss, did not provide coverage for medical expenses.

Flowers v. EZPawn Oklahoma, Inc., et al., 2004 WL504735, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3857 (N.D. Okla. 2004)
Flowers alleged that EZPawn entered into a series of payday loans extracting unlawful and usurious interest rates. The case presented the technical, but important, question of whether the federal law regulating state-chartered banks completely preempted state law. Flowers alleged that EZPawn, through its Oklahoma pawn shop and lending operating subsidiary, entered into payday loan transactions in Oklahoma. Payday loans are extremely high interest, short-term loans offered to cash strapped consumers. Flowers alleged that EZPawn partnered with a federally-chartered bank insured by the FDIC in what is known as a "rent-a-charter" or "rent-a-bank" scam to avoid state law limits on interest charges. The payday loan sold to Flowers bore a whopping annual percentage rate of 505.38%, more than twice the maximum interest rate allowed under then current Oklahoma law. Flowers alleged that EZPawn entered into a straw man or sham transaction with a federally-chartered bank to evade Oklahoma's more stringent usury laws. The United States District Court, in the first decision of its kind, found that the Depository Institutions Deregulatory Act did not preempt state laws, and it did not confer jurisdiction to the federal court to decide Flowers' claims. The U.S. District Court sent the case back to the state district court for a decision on the merits. The Court's decision has been cited nationally as precedent and is important to consumer advocates because it offers a well-reasoned distinction to the decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that another federal act, the National Bank Act, does preempt state law usury claims in similar circumstances.

Pace v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., 2004 WL1057795 (E.D. Tex. 2004) (United States District Court, Eastern District Of Texas, Marshall Division, 4/20/04.)
Federal court decision holding that Experian Credit Reporting Agency's procedures for investigating identity theft and fraud accounts was not reasonable as a matter of law, and rather, presented a jury question.

Conatzer v. American Mercury Ins. Co., Inc., 15 P.3d 1252 2000 OK CIV APP 141
This decision established the existence of a cause of action in Oklahoma based upon allegations of salvage title laundering. Salvage title laundering is a fraudulent insurance practice that involves the sale of a wrecked car that has been totaled or declared salvage to a third party. The third party, usually an out-of-state broker, sells the vehicle with a clear or "laundered" title.

Brashears v. Sight 'N Sound Appliance Centers, Inc., 1999 OK CIV APP 52 981 P.2d 1270
Established a cause of action under the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act for victims of a "bait and switch" false advertising scheme who did not purchase the "switch" item. Expanded recoverable damages under the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act to include discomfort, aggravation, loss of time and other general damages.

Fuller v. Sight 'N Sound Appliance Centers, Inc.
Companion case to Brashears v. Sight 'N Sound Appliance Centers, Inc. The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals held that multiple consumers may join together to bring individual claims under the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act, in this case, alleging that retailer engaged in a scheme to sell used, remanufactured or flood damaged merchandise as new.

Sligar v. Bartlett 1996 OK 144, 916 P.2d 1383
Oklahoma Supreme Court decision outlining approved method for juror note taking.

In The News

June 2005 The Consumer Advocate, Vol II, No.2, a publication of the National Association of Consumer Advocates Predatory Lending Verdict: $1.765 Million
This article contains a discussion of a recent predatory lending verdict obtained by partners in the firm.

January 31, 2005 Lawyers Weekly USA
Loan Flipping Verdict Nets $1.75 Million
National publication for law firms, highlighting recent verdict obtained by the firm.

Dec 14, 2004 Tulsa World Editorial
Tulsan Victimized by Lenders
Tulsa World editorial commenting on the firm's recent loan flipping trial:

"The verdict should serve as an eye-opener for the Oklahoma Legislature, which in recent years has turned a cold shoulder to the state's most economically vulnerable and unsophisticated citizens when it comes to protecting them against unscrupulous lenders."

Dec 9, 2004 Tulsa World
Tulsan's Fraud Damages Tops $1.7 Million
Security Finance holds itself out as the largest privately-held storefront lender in the nation, operating more than 1,000 branches in 17 states. Plaintiffs contended that Security Finance fueled its growth by operating a loan-flipping scheme, preying on unsophisticated, financially vulnerable, and disabled people. On December 8, 2004, a Tulsa County jury unanimously found Security Finance to have engaged in fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, also finding by clear and convincing evidence that Security Finance acted with malice in defrauding John Gilbert. Beginning in April of 1997, and continuing through June of 2001, Security Finance, began serial refinancing of John Gilbert, flipping his loan 37 times. By doing so every 60 days, Security Finance was able to generate excessive finance charges. John Gilbert is mentally retarded, unable to read or write, and possesses an IQ of 59. His sole source of income is Social Security Disability.

The evidence at trial showed that Security Finance intended to trap vulnerable borrowers into everlasting debt. Security Finance is able to do so because of its strategy of preventing customer loan payoffs and repeatedly renewing loans, with the intention of trapping customers into a lifetime of monthly payments. The evidence at trial showed that Security Finance sells loan renewals by making misrepresentations and concealing facts from customers. John Gilbert brought the lawsuit through his brother and guardian, Gary Gilbert, and contended that Security Finance committed fraud as a matter of company practice.

The evidence further showed that Security Finance increased customer loan balances to prevent loan payoffs and to retain monthly-paying customers. After Gilbert's loan balance was maxed out in one location, he was referred to two other Security Finance branches, where his loan balance was also increased to the maximum legal limit. By late 2000, Gilbert's monthly loan payments exceeded his monthly disability income. In December 2000, Gilbert paid his rent money to Security Finance and lost his subsidized housing. After Gilbert became homeless, Security Finance continued to flip his loan, even picking him up from the homeless shelter to do so.

December 2004 The Consumer Advocate, Vol. 10, No. 4, a publication of the National Association of Consumer Advocates
Lemon Laundering: Discovering the True Story written by David Humphreys and Luke Wallace
In this article, the authors share case development and trial strategies in a lemon laundering case. Lemon laundering is a fraudulent practice engaged in by some car dealers to take advantage of a loophole in state law permitting a defective, new vehicle to be purchased by a manufacturer as a "lemon" to be resold in Oklahoma without proper disclosure.

June 2004 The Warrior, Journal of the Gerry Spence Trial Lawyers College
David and Luke: A True Partnership
Article announcing the presentation of the "Warrior of the Year" award to David Humphreys and Luke Wallace for 2004 for the South Central Region.

March 12, 2004 The Oklahoman
Senate OK's payday loan delay - Bill requires 24-hour period before borrowers sign again
Article quotes firm member David Humphreys, Chairperson of the Oklahoma Coalition of Consumer Advocates, pointing out a key provision permitting a "cooling off period between loans" to prevent continual flipping of payday loans.

February 8, 2004 Tulsa World
Payday Lending Not What It Seems
Article discussing the hidden dangers of the recent spread of payday lending into Oklahoma. "The dirty secret of payday lending is that its business model depends on trapping working people into a vicious cycle of repeated transactions."

Feb 16, 2002 Tulsa World
Forged Contract Case Nets $1.35 Million
Tulsa World article featuring verdict on behalf of a consumer sued by lender on debt consumer did not owe. Client was a victim of identify theft and false credit reporting, and evidence at trial established that lender knew this before filing suit.

October 26, 2001 Tulsa World
Small Claims Case Grows to $310,000
Tulsa World article reporting on recent verdict obtained by the firm against statewide finance company. Cashland sued in small claims court due to nonpayment on high cost installment loan. After obtaining judgment and receiving payment in full, lender obtained an additional payment of approximately $110.00 by garnishment. Cashland refused to refund to the borrower the amount it overgarnished. The evidence at trial established that Cashland sued hundreds of customers statewide that could not afford lawyers and the company took default judgment, many times obtaining overcharges or payments for amounts not owed

October 3, 2000 Tulsa World
Paraplegic Handed $3.003 Million Award
Tulsa World report on the firm's verdict against insurer who deprived disabled insured of $3,000 in health insurance policy benefits due to unreasonable and bad faith refusal to pay. Evidence at trial also established that insurer intentionally delayed payment of other claims to negotiate discounts from health care providers who treated insured following motorcycle collision that caused insured's paraplegia.