The opinion
DEBORAH S. EYLER, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. In my view, the facts in evidence in this case were legally insufficient to support a finding that the MET made a false representation of fact to the Gaynors, and therefore to support a finding of fraud.
The letter that Mr. Highsaw sent to Mr. Gaynor said:
The Board requests that the owners consider adding a “no subdivision” provision to the Gaynor, Schumacher/Parker, and Servary deeds____ Because of its smaller size, the Board especially recommends this provision for the Servary property____Please report this to each property owners, and discuss this request at your September 18th meeting and get back to me.
(Emphasis supplied.) By its plain language, this letter asks Mr. Gaynor to have the owners think about adding “no subdivision” provisions to their deeds. The implicit meaning of these words is that the board wanted the owners to include such a provision in their deeds, but was not demanding that they do so — in other words, it was for the owners to decide whether they would include the “no subdivision” provision in their deeds. The words cannot reasonably be read to mean anything else. There is nothing whatsoever in the language of the letter to suggest that the owners had to agree to include the “no subdivision” provision in their deeds, or the easements would not be accepted. Thus, the letter to Mr. Gaynor fully *445 and accurately conveyed the precise decision made by the board at its meeting.