A $145,000 covenant judgment was vacated because a lawyer's office broke down
A $145,000 covenant judgment was vacated because a lawyer's office broke down
2026-09-15 · Oklahoma · Courts
The Oklahoma Supreme Court has vacated a $145,000 judgment entered against a lot owner in a common-area and restrictive-covenant fight, holding that a breakdown in his lawyer's office — not any choice of his own — is what left the case undefended.1
Bjorkman v. Noble, 2025 OK 62, 579 P.3d 602, was decided September 30, 2025, mandate October 30, 2025. The Court granted certiorari, vacated the Court of Civil Appeals opinion, reversed the district court and remanded.
The claims
At ¶2: “Appellees (collectively 'Homeowners') brought this action against Appellant Terry B. Noble ('Noble'), alleging conversion, trespass, outrage, reformation of restrictive covenants, quiet title, and injunctive relief to prevent Noble from interfering with Homeowners' use of the common areas in a real estate development.”
That is a familiar Oklahoma shape: a dispute over who controls the common areas in a development, brought by owners rather than by an association, and pleaded with both property theories and tort theories attached.
What went wrong, and what the Court held
The syllabus states the holding: “Appellant appeals from a post-judgment order of the district court denying his motion to vacate. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, and this Court granted certiorari. We hold that, under the facts and circumstances of this case, unavoidable casualty or misfortune prevented Appellant from defending the action against him, justifying the vacation of the judgment.” (¶0.)
And at ¶24: “A breakdown in office procedures, abandonment of the case due to a miscommunication between Noble and Johnson, and an award of damages and attorney fees without due process resulted in the entry of summary judgment and unsupported damages against Noble. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, we hold that the district court abused its discretion in failing to vacate the judgment based on the grounds of unavoidable casualty or misfortune.”
The damages the Court called unsupported
The judgment the Court took apart was, at ¶3, $75,000 actual damages, $50,000 punitive damages and $20,000 in attorney fees. The Court's objection was not that the figures were too high in the abstract — it was that they were entered “without due process,” meaning without an evidentiary basis put before the court and tested.
That is the part of the decision with the widest reach. A default or unopposed posture does not relieve the plaintiff of proving damages. In covenant litigation, where actual damages are often hard to quantify and punitive damages are sought on an outrage theory, a number entered without proof is a number the Supreme Court has now shown it will disturb.
What it means for an association bringing a covenant case
An uncontested win is the least durable kind. An association that obtains summary judgment and a damages award against an absent or under-represented owner has a judgment that is vulnerable for as long as the vacation grounds remain available. The money in such a judgment is not money the association can plan around.
Prove the damages even when nobody is opposing them. Put the repair invoices, the loss-of-use evidence, the fee affidavits and the time records into the record. It costs a hearing and it is the difference between a judgment that stands and one that is reversed two years later on certiorari.
Punitive damages in a covenant dispute invite exactly this scrutiny. Fifty thousand dollars in punitive damages, entered without an evidentiary record, is the item that makes a judgment look like the product of a defaulted process rather than a decided case.
What it means for an owner
The route the Court used is vacation for “unavoidable casualty or misfortune” — a recognised statutory ground, not a general second chance. What carried it here was that the failure was the lawyer's office, the miscommunication was documented, and the damages had been entered without process. An owner who simply ignored the suit has none of that.
What to watch next
The case was remanded, so the underlying question — who may use the common areas in this development, and whether the restrictive covenants should be reformed — is still to be decided on the merits. Common-area control disputes brought by owners rather than by an association are an under-litigated corner of Oklahoma law, and a merits decision on remand would be the first substantial recent word on it.
Related Oklahoma HOA Topics
Stay on top of Oklahoma HOA law
Every week: new Oklahoma legislation, court rulings, and regulatory developments affecting condos, planned communities, and property managers. Free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.