A dues-increase fight in Oklahoma is a derivative action, not a lawsuit
A dues-increase fight in Oklahoma is a derivative action, not a lawsuit
2026-09-15 · Oklahoma · Courts
Oklahoma members who object to an assessment increase cannot simply sue. In Haddan v. The Coves Master Association, Inc., 2025 OK CIV APP 12, 570 P.3d 602, the Court of Civil Appeals held that a challenge to a dues increase used to prop up a golf course was “in substance” a derivative action under 12 O.S. § 2023.1 — and that the petition failed because the members never made the demand that statute requires.1
Decided March 28, 2025, mandate April 24, 2025. Division II affirmed and remanded, giving the plaintiffs thirty days after mandate to renew a request to amend.
The money, and the two votes
The facts are unusually clean for a case of this kind, because both the board and the membership acted. At ¶6: “the Board voted to increase Association members' dues by $25 per month for twelve months and provide those funds as temporary financial support for the operation of the golf course.”
Then, at ¶7: “A substantial majority of the members voted to approve a $25 per month increase in their dues for a period of twenty-four months to be dedicated to support the Golf Club.” The membership did not merely ratify what the board had done — it doubled the duration.
Why that became a procedural loss
At ¶17 the court set out the rule and the characterisation together: “Absent an exception which the Plaintiffs have not invoked, a shareholder or member of the organization must make demand on the corporation's board of directors to pursue litigation the shareholder desires before filing a derivative action,” and “the essence of the Plaintiffs' case is a derivative action filed pursuant to 12 O.S.2021 § 2023.1.”
The reason is stated at ¶18: “the purpose of the demand requirement is to ensure that the corporate board's management decisions are respected.”
The disposition, and the narrow door left open
At ¶53: “The Plaintiffs' Petition, informed by the documents attached thereto, fails to state a derivative claim on behalf of the Association. The orders appealed are affirmed and this case is remanded for consideration of the Plaintiffs' request to file an amended petition, if it is renewed within thirty (30) days after Mandate is issued.”
That is not a merits ruling on the golf-course subsidy. The court never reached whether an association may divert general assessments to an amenity that not every member uses. It held the plaintiffs had not pleaded their way to the question.
What “in substance” means for how a claim is drafted
The characterisation is the whole case. A plaintiff cannot escape § 2023.1 by styling a claim as breach of contract, breach of the declaration, or a request for declaratory relief. The court looked at what the claim was for — a wrong to the association, remedied by money returning to the association — and treated it accordingly.
The practical consequence: a member contemplating an assessment challenge in Oklahoma should assume the demand requirement applies and satisfy it, rather than litigate over whether it does. Making a demand that turns out to have been unnecessary costs a letter and a wait. Skipping one that turns out to have been required costs the case.
The membership vote is part of the record
Paragraph 7 is doing quiet work. When a substantial majority of the members has voted for the increase, a court reviewing board conduct is looking at a decision the membership itself endorsed. That does not make an unlawful assessment lawful — a vote cannot authorise what the declaration forbids — but it removes the argument that the board acted against the members' wishes.
What it means for a board
Put a contested assessment to the membership where the governing documents allow it. The Coves board did, and the record of that vote is in the opinion.
State the purpose and the duration in the resolution. Both appear in the opinion as specific findings: $25 per month, twelve months from the board, twenty-four from the membership, dedicated to the Golf Club. Specificity is what makes a decision reviewable as a business judgment rather than an open-ended transfer.
Keep the amenity's finances separable. A subsidy that can be traced, capped and ended is a different object in litigation from a general fund that quietly carries a losing operation.
Read it with Howard
Eleven months after Haddan, the Oklahoma Supreme Court decided Howard v. The Barrington Homeowners Association, 2026 OK 9, applying the business judgment rule and the same § 2023.1 demand requirement, and holding that three days between demand and filing was not enough.2 Together the two decisions mean an Oklahoma member challenging a board now faces a pleading requirement, a waiting requirement, and a presumption in the board's favour on the merits.
What to watch next
Neither decision addresses the individual-injury case — the owner fined under a rule nobody else is fined under, the architectural application denied on terms the neighbour's was not. Those are direct claims, not derivative ones, and Oklahoma's appellate courts have not yet drawn the line between them in an association setting.
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.