Opinion

Grindstaff v. Oaks Owners' Ass'n

  • 386 P.3d 1035
  • 2016 OK CIV APP 73
  • 2016 Okla. Civ. App. LEXIS 40
Court
Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma
Filed
Apr 25, 2016
Status
Published
Author
Rapp
On the bench
Barnes, Rapp, Thornbrugh
Cited by
5 cases

analyzing whether a declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions and homeowners' association's bylaws were contracts of adhesion

How later courts described this case

  • analyzing whether a declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions and homeowners' association's bylaws were contracts of adhesion
  • “A contract is ambiguous when it is fairly susceptible to two different constructions, so that reasonable intelligent [people], on reading the contract, would honestly differ as to its meaning.” (citation omitted)

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

RAPP, J., dissenting:

¶ 1 I dissent. Simply stated, Homeowners were members of HOA. The duty of HOA was to maintain, for the common good of each member, the common areas of the Association.

¶ 2 Homeowners purchased property within the Oaks subdivision that bordered a common area and contained, as part of this common area, a free-flowing creek. Creeks and streams are known to cause accretion and deletion of property adjacent to them. 1

¶3 The trial court here found that HOA had a duty to maintain and repair the common area, but not to install erosion control of the creek bordering and contained in the common area. Knowing that deletion is in any free-flowing stream, HOA had a duty to guard against and be proactive in the maintenance of the stream banks. HOA was put on notice that all was not stable when the creek caused a tree to topple into the water due to undercutting its support. This warning affected not one single lot owner, but all within that creek area’s common boundary.

*1049 ¶ 4 I would hold that HOA violated HOA covenants and bylaws under the guise that failure to prevent erosion would, by some stretch of logic, benefit only Homeowners and not other lot owners, ignoring that water finding an easier path will do so and affect others. HOA performed, at best, a diminished action by keeping the streambed clear and ignoring the erosion at its own peril.

¶ 5 Accordingly, I would reverse and remand.

. This area of law is so well known that citations are not necessary.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.