As We Forgive Those Who Don’t Trespass Against Us

The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment to a process server sued by an attorney

 Defendant is a licensed process server. Plaintiff is an attorney. At the time the instant matter arose, both parties were professionally engaged in a Tulsa County civil case. On January 27, 2021, Defendant drove his vehicle through an open gate into the gated Tulsa neighborhood where Plaintiff resides. Defendant then parked his car in front of Plaintiff’s house, walked to the front porch and either knocked on the door or rang the doorbell. When Plaintiff opened the door, Defendant served Plaintiff a subpoena related to the Tulsa County case. Defendant then returned to his car and exited the neighborhood.

Plaintiff filed the instant suit two months later, asserting Defendant was trespassing when he entered the gated community and entered upon Plaintiff’s property without permission. Both sides thereafter moved for summary judgment. Plaintiff contended Defendant trespassed because he drove through the security gate without permission. Plaintiff’s argument included the proposition that everything in the neighborhood within the gates constitutes Plaintiff’s curtilage. Defendant averred he did not force his way into the neighborhood, the area within the neighborhood is owned by the community’s home owners’ association, Plaintiff has no standing to maintain a trespass action relating to the neighborhood common areas, and no curtilage existed on Plaintiff’s property upon which Defendant could have trespassed.

The gate

We begin our analysis by addressing Plaintiff’s repeated claim that Defendant circumvented the security gate and gained entry into the neighborhood by surreptitiously following another, authorized vehicle through the gate. The record contains no such evidentiary support.

…the gate to the Plaintiff’s neighborhood was open to the public at the time Defendant entered the property. Defendant did not force his way into the addition. Second, the gate allowed access to the entire neighborhood, not Plaintiff’s residence specifically. Defendant entered only the common areas of the neighborhood when he passed through the gate. Moreover, the entire gated community cannot be considered Plaintiff’s curtilage because it does not immediately surround or adjoin his dwelling house. No individual could reasonably expect that the common areas of the neighborhood should be treated as Plaintiff’s home itself.

Further, plaintiff had no standing to assert trespass for common areas.

Home

we hold Defendant did not trespass upon the property actually owned by Plaintiff. The undisputed evidence demonstrates the front of Plaintiff’s house is not enclosed by a fence or similar obstacle. Defendant stopped his vehicle in the street in front of Plaintiff’s house, walked directly to Plaintiff’s doorway, either rang the doorbell or knocked on the door, and served Plaintiff when he opened the door. Plaintiff then immediately returned to his car and exited the area. He neither entered Plaintiff’s house nor remained on the premises against Plaintiff’s wishes.

(Mike Frisch)