Court Opinion

ID: 9747133
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 14:58:26.801808+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:19.858665
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
CAROL M. HANSEN, Judge.
T1 The majority mischaracterizes the issue as one dealing with whether a gate "could remain" in the fence. The original fence and gate are gone.
*97812 Charter Oaks Home Owners Association, is a gated community consisting of 65 lots. The 1988 charter and by-laws reserved a three foot perimeter and fence easement in favor of Association along the northern edge of the community. The fence had three gates at the time Plaintiffs purchased their lots. It is undisputed there is no provision in the charter, covenants or by-laws allowing lot owners to install a gate in the perimeter fence
3 In 2008, because the fence was deteriorating, Association advised Plaintiffs of its intention to replace the fence. Margerison, a member of Association's Board of Directors, at its meeting, received a minority vote purporting to allow him to install a gate in the fence at his own expense, which he did. However, Margerison did not have a majority vote by the Board members present approving his petition to install a gate.1 Later in 2009, Association, by a vote of the owners, demanded he remove the fence.
T4 The original grant to COHA Charter provides:
Grantor (Charter Oaks Homes) hereby grants to Charter Oaks Homeowners Association an easement, of the varying width shown on the accompanying plat, on all perimeter lots and lot 'B' as shown and designated on the plat for the several purposes of construction, maintaining, altering, repairing, removing and replacing retaining and sereening walls, fences, and landscape materials on the exterior side thereof, with the right of ingress and egress in and to said easements for the uses and purposes aforesaid.
15 The plats also reflect an easement for maintenance and fencing. And again in 1990, a third amendment of declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions further contained a section on perimeter fencing or walls. It is even more indicative of an exclusive easement. -It provides:
Within the Deed of Dedication of Charter Oak there has been heretofore established for the benefit of the Association a perpetual easement upon the perimeter of Charter Oak for the purposes of the erection, installation, and maintenance of security and entry facilities, decorative fencing, walls and landscaping shall be the obligation of the Association. The perimeter easement of the Association shall be deemed exclusive, and no individual lot owners shall construct any fence or wall within the perimeter easement area or within 10 feet of the perimeter boundary line of Charter Oak, unless the proposed fence or wall shall have first been approved in writing by the association.
T6 Clearly, Association has a right in the easement to build a perimeter fence consistent with the purpose of the easement. Plaintiffs admit Association owns the fence. Placing a gate in the fence is inconsistent with the easement and in conflict with the intended limited access and exclusive rights of Association.
T 7 Plaintiffs point to no provision in any of the charter documents that permit a vote by the board to prevail without a vote of the homeowners.
T8 Plaintiffs are claiming an ownership right superior to the easement rights of Association. Although Plaintiffs in their motion for summary judgment cite several distinguishable decisions from other jurisdictions to support their claims, they do not cite any Oklahoma decision directly applicable to their claims. As pointed out in Association's response to Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, under the original founding and governing documents the original grantor installed a fence, created an easement and assigned the same to Association. Plaintiffs may not cireumvent these rights. The fact Plaintiffs bought their property partly based on access to the park and the fact it was inconvenient for them to walk or ride to the community exit for that access is not material to this decision.
T9 Equity follows the law. Where the rights of the parties are clearly defined and established by law, equity has no power to change or unsettle those rights. The maxims of equity may be invoked to protect an existing right, but they are unavailable to create a *979right where none exists. Mehdipour v. Holland, 2007 OK 69, 177 P.3d 544. The majority appears to create a right through equity where none exists in the law.
10 There are no material facts in controversy. Association owns the fence. Accordingly the trial court did not err in granting Association's motion for summary judgment.

. Margerison abstained from voting on this issue.