CRAZY CIVIL COURT ← Back
TULSA COUNTY • CJ-2026-987

David Alan Stoller v. Gary A. Moon and Janet M. Moon

Filed: Mar 3, 2026
Type: CJ

What's This Case About?

Let’s get one thing straight: this is not a murder case. There are no bodies. No blood. No shadowy figures in ski masks. But in the high-stakes world of suburban real estate, what we do have is arguably more terrifying — a five-foot strip of land that has somehow managed to summon the full fury of the legal system, seven separate claims, and a $75,000 grudge. David Alan Stoller didn’t just buy a house in Tulsa County. He bought a war. And it all started over a courtyard that may or may not legally exist.

David Stoller is the latest in a long line of people who thought they were just buying a nice little home in The Villas of Tuscany — a development with a name that sounds like a timeshare in Florence but is, in fact, a cluster of modest houses off East 118th Place in Tulsa. His property, 5015 East 118th Place, includes the east 20 feet of Lot 7 and all of Lot 8 in Block 1 of this so-called Tuscan paradise. Next door, at 5009 East 118th Place, live Gary and Janet Moon — not a married superhero duo, but a couple who, according to Stoller, have turned a shared courtyard into a personal fiefdom. The Moon Property sits on the east 30 feet of Lot 6 and the west 35 feet of Lot 7 — meaning it shares a boundary with Stoller’s land. And right on that boundary? A five-foot-wide sliver of dirt, grass, and apparently, decades of legal drama.

Now, here’s where it gets juicy. Back in 2008, before either Stoller or the Moons owned their homes, the developer — a company called Hunters Hollow, LLC — did something very strange. It signed an easement… with itself. That’s right. Hunters Hollow, the sole owner of both plots at the time, granted itself an easement over part of what would become Stoller’s land so that whoever eventually bought the Moon Property could build a courtyard. The easement, recorded in January 2008, gives the “dominant estate” (Moon) the right to “construct and maintain a courtyard and landscaping features” on the west five feet of Stoller’s property — the “servient estate.” It also says the owner of the servient estate (Stoller) keeps a “perpetual easement for access” to maintain their own home. There’s even a clause saying the courtyard owner can’t attach anything to the neighbor’s house. All very neighborly. On paper.

But here’s the legal curveball: you can’t grant yourself an easement. It’s like writing yourself a permission slip to use your own backpack. The law calls this “unity of ownership” — and when one entity owns both properties, any attempt to create an easement between them collapses like a house of cards. Hunters Hollow was both grantor and grantee. So, Stoller’s argument is simple: the easement was void from the start. Never valid. Never enforceable. A legal ghost haunting his title like a bad credit score.

Fast-forward through a chain of ownership that looks like a real estate version of The Circle — Knights to Neighbors to Bridges trusts to Stoller — and the Moons, who bought their place in 2018, apparently treated that five-foot strip like it was theirs. They built landscaping. They may have attached things to Stoller’s house (allegedly violating the easement’s own rules). They blocked access for maintenance. And according to Stoller, they acted like they owned the land, not just had limited rights to use it. He says they’ve “overburdened” the easement, turning a shared courtyard into a private fortress. He can’t get to his own walls. He can’t maintain his siding. He can’t even enjoy his own backyard without feeling like he’s trespassing in his own home.

So now, Stoller’s suing — not just to clarify the rules, but to erase them entirely. His lawsuit is a seven-course legal feast. First, he wants the court to declare the easement void — basically asking a judge to say, “Yep, that never counted.” Second, he wants to quiet title, which is a fancy way of saying “get this junk off my property record.” Third, he claims the Moons overused the easement — like borrowing your neighbor’s lawnmower and then starting a landscaping business with it. Fourth, he says they breached the easement by attaching things to his house and blocking access. Fifth, he wants a permanent injunction — a court order saying “hands off, forever.” Sixth, he’s accusing them of trespassing — entering his land without permission. And seventh, he wants them ejected — kicked off his property like unruly houseguests who overstayed their welcome.

And how much does Stoller want? Over $75,000 in damages. Is that a lot for a five-foot strip of land? Well, depends. If you’re talking square footage, we’re dealing with roughly 150 square feet — about the size of a studio apartment in Brooklyn, but in Tulsa, where land is cheap, that’s not exactly a fortune. But $75k isn’t just for dirt. It’s for legal fees, emotional distress, property devaluation, and the sheer indignity of not being able to clean your own gutters without asking permission from the guy next door. It’s the price of peace. And Stoller is done paying it in stress.

Now, let’s be real: this case is absurd — and beautiful. It’s the kind of neighbor feud that starts with a passive-aggressive note about trash cans and ends with a team of lawyers from Doerner Saunders Daniel & Anderson, LLP (yes, that’s a real firm, and yes, they’re billing by the hour) filing a 20-page petition citing Oklahoma statutes like they’re scripture. The Moons aren’t accused of murder, arson, or even loud parties. They’re accused of using a courtyard. Maybe they overstepped. Maybe they misunderstood the rules. Maybe they just really love gardening. But Stoller isn’t asking for compromise. He’s asking for annihilation. He wants the easement wiped from existence. He wants the Moons ejected. He wants a judge to bless his ownership of every blade of grass on that five-foot strip.

The most ridiculous part? This could’ve been settled over a fence. A cup of coffee. A HOA meeting. But instead, we’re here — in the District Court of Tulsa County — arguing about whether a developer can grant itself an easement like it’s playing legal solitaire. And while we’re not lawyers (we’re entertainers, remember?), even we know this: real estate law is less about fairness and more about paperwork. If the easement was recorded, it might survive, even if it was born in legal nonsense. If the Moons have been using it openly for years, they might have a claim under “prescriptive easement” — basically, “we’ve been doing it so long, it’s ours now.” But Stoller’s betting the court will see the original easement as a technical farce — a paperwork trick that never should’ve survived the developer selling off the lots.

So who are we rooting for? Honestly? The five-foot strip. May it remain wild. May it grow weeds. May it become a no-man’s-land where neither side dares tread. Because if this case teaches us anything, it’s that when you try to own every inch, you end up losing your mind. And in the great American tradition of neighbor wars, this one isn’t about justice — it’s about pride. And pride, my friends, is always the most expensive thing on the deed.

Case Overview

Petition
Jurisdiction
District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma
Relief Sought
$75,000 Monetary
Injunctive Relief
Declaratory Relief
Plaintiffs
Defendants
Claims
# Cause of Action Description
1 declaratory judgment invalidation of easement
2 quiet title quieting of title to Stoller Property
3 overuse of easement damages for overuse of easement
4 breach of easement damages for breach of easement
5 permanent injunction permanent injunction against Moon
6 trespass damages for trespass
7 ejectment ejectment of Moon from Stoller Property

Petition Text

2,959 words
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA David Alan Stoller, Plaintiff, v. Gary A. Moon and Janet M. Moon, Defendants. Original Petition Plaintiff, David Alan Stoller brings this action against Defendants, Gary A. Moon and Janet M. Moon seeking invalidation of an easement, damages caused by use and misuse of the easement, quieting his title, and enjoining further injury. Parties 1. David Alan Stoller ("Stoller") is a resident of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma. 2. Gary A. Moon and Janet M. Moon are residents of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma. Together they will be referred to as "Moon." Jurisdiction and Venue 3. Stoller resides at and owns property at 5015 East 118th Place, Tulsa, Oklahoma. This will be referred to as the "Stoller Property." 4. The legal description for the Stoller Property is: The East Twenty (20) feet of Lot Seven (7), and all of and All of Lot Eight (8), Block One (1), THE VILLAS OF TUSCANY, a Subdivision in the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, according to the recorded Plat No. 5666. The Stoller deed is attached as Exhibit A. 5. Moon resides at and owns property at 5009 East 118th Place, Tulsa, Oklahoma. This will be referred to as the "Moon Property." 6. The legal description for the Moon Property is: The East Third (30) feet of Lot Six (6) and the West Thirty-Five (35) feet of Lot Seven (7), Block One (1), THE VILLAS OF TUSCANY, a Subdivision in the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, according to the recorded Plat No. 5666. 7. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Okla. Const. art. VII, § 7. 8. Venue of this action is proper in Tulsa County because the property involved is in Tulsa County and the parties are residents of Tulsa County. Background Facts A. Development of The Villas of Tuscany. 9. Both the Moon Property and the Stoller Property are located within a subdivision named The Villas of Tuscany. 10. The Villas of Tuscany was platted in Plat 5666 as P.U.D. No. 527, Development Area B-1. 11. The Final Plat was recorded in the Tulsa County land records on January 30, 2003, as Doc. No. 03013985, Book 6926 Page 1132. 12. The owner and developer of The Villas of Tuscany was Hunters Hollow, LLC. 13. Prior to February 19, 2008, both the Moon Property and the Stoller Property were owned by Hunters Hollow LLC, which was seized in the fee simple ownership of a larger tract of property that included the Moon and Stoller Properties. B. Development of the Stoller Property. 14. On February 19, 2008, Hunters Hollow conveyed the Stoller Property by a Joint Tenancy Warranty Deed to William W. Knight and Roseanne M Knight. This deed is recorded as Doc. No. 2008-018067. 15. The home on the Stoller Property was built in 2009. [Zillow] 16. On August 31, 2011, a Warranty Deed *Correction* was made by Hunters Hollow to William W. Knight and Roseanne M. Knight. This deed is recorded as Doc. No. 2011-085954. The document notes the deed was "being refiled to correct legal description." 17. On October 23, 2018, William W. Knight and Roseanne M. Knight conveyed the Stoller Property by a Joint Tenancy Warranty Deed to David L. Neighbors and Lisa Neighbors. This deed is recorded as Doc. No. 2018-099561. 18. On February 26, 2019, David L. and Lisa Neighbors conveyed the Stoller Property by a Quitclaim Deed to the David L. Neighbors Revocable Trust. This deed is recorded as Doc. No. 2019-019367 19. On September 22, 2021, the David L Neighbors Revocable Trust conveyed the Stoller Property by a General Warranty Deed to the Michael R. Bridges and Barbara J. Bridges Revocable Living Trust. This deed is recorded as Doc. 2021-112762 20. On December 27, 2022, the Michael R. Bridges and Barbra J. Bridges Revocable Living Trust conveyed the Stoller Property by a Warranty Deed to the Michael R Bridges Revocable Trust and the Barbara J. Bridges Revocable Trust, in equal shares as tenants in common. This deed is recorded as Doc. No. 2022-127186. 21. On December 4, 2024, the Michael R. Bridges Revocable Trust and the Barbara J. Bridges Revocable Trust conveyed the Stoller Property by a Trustee’s Deed to David Alan Stoller. This deed is recorded as Doc. No. 2024-102613. C. Development of the Moon Property. 22. The home on the Moon Property was constructed in 2014. 23. On April 1, 2016, Hunters Hollow, LLC conveyed the Moon Property by a Warranty Deed to the Sara B. Meyberg Trust. This is deed is recorded as Doc. 2016-030045. 24. On December 11, 2018, the Sarah B Meyberg trust conveyed the Moon Property by a Warranty Deed to Moon. This deed is recorded as Doc. No. 2018-112617. D. The Courtyard Easement. 25. On January 3, 2008, Hunters Hollow, LLC, as Grantor signed and subsequently recorded a Courtyard Easement. This easement is recorded as Doc. No. 2008-007444. 26. Hunters Hollow, LLC, was also the Grantee of the Courtyard Easement. 27. The Stoller Property was the servient estate in the Courtyard Easement. 28. The Moon Property was the Dominant estate in the Courtyard Easement. 29. The physical area of the Courtyard Easement was the west five feet of the Stoller Property. 30. The building setback line was also five feet for each lot. 31. The building setback line provided for a minimum of ten feet between the west wall of a home on the Stoller Property and the east wall of a home on the Moon Property. 32. The stated purpose of the Courtyard Easement was to allow the owners of the Moon Property "the right to construct and maintain of (sic) a courtyard and landscaping features upon the Courtyard Easement for the use and enjoyment of Grantee." 33. Both homes on the Stoller Property and Moon Property were built based on the minimum building setback line of five feet. This provided a space of ten feet between the homes, half of which was the five-foot strip on the west side of the Stoller Property described by the Courtyard Easement. 34. The Courtyard Easement provides as a restriction: "2. Grantee shall not physically attach any fence, wall or improvement to the neighboring Grantor's residence." 35. The Courtyard Easement further provides that the owners of the Stoller Property "shall retain a perpetual easement for access upon the Courtyard Easement they have granted for the purpose of maintenance of Grantor's residence." Claims for Relief 36. Each allegation of this Petition is incorporated in each Claim for Relief. First Claim for Relief (Declaratory Judgment) 37. A dispute exists between Stoller and Moon based on Moon’s historical conduct and positions with respect to the right to use the Courtyard Easement and easement area. Moon has claimed not only that the Courtyard Easement is valid, but also that a prescriptive easement exists. Stoller believes these claims to be legally and factually wrong. 38. A dispute exists between Stoller and Moon as to the scope of any easement that may exist. 39. Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 1651, district courts may, in a case of actual controversy, determine rights, status or other legal relations as between the parties. 40. Based on the facts pled and to be established by evidence, the Court should declare that the Courtyard Easement is void and that no other easement, including a prescriptive easement, exists in favor of Moon’s usage of Stoller’s real property. Second Claim for Relief (Quiet Title) 41. The Courtyard Easement is void and has never been effective to grant a legal right to use any of the Stoller Property. 42. The owner of a fee simple estate cannot grant itself an easement for use of a party of the fee simple estate. Hunters Hollow, LLC, purported to be both the grantor and the grantee of the easement. Unity of ownership causes an immediate merger of title and failure of the purported conveyance. 43. The Courtyard Easement is a cloud on the title to the Stoller Property. 44. The Court should declare the Courtyard Easement is void *ab initio* and provides no rights to the owners of the Moon Property. Third Claim for Relief (Overuse of Easement) 45. In the alternative, if the Courtyard Easement is valid, then Moon has overused the rights under the easement, exceeded the scope of the easement, and imposed an unreasonable burden on the servient estate, the Stoller Property. 46. Moon has overburdened the easement by excluding the Grantor's assignee, Stoller and by increasing the intensity of the use from enjoyment to absolute dominion and control functionally claiming ownership. 47. Moon has injured Stoller's property rights by overuse of the easement. Fourth Claim for Relief (Breach of Easement) 48. In the alternative, if the Courtyard Easement is valid, then Moon has breached the easement. 49. The easement prohibits Moon from physically attaching any improvement to Stoller's residence. Improvements to the Moon Property have been physically attached to Stoller's residence. 50. The easement requires Moon to provide perpetual access for purpose of maintenance of Grantor's residence. Improvements to the Moon Property have interfered with the right of maintenance of Stoller's residence. Moon has also taken active steps to interfere with maintenance of the Stoller Property and residence. Fifth Claim for Relief (Permanent Injunction) 51. Moon's conduct injures and violates Stoller's property rights and violates any easement that may exist. 52. Moon's conduct, if not restrained and enjoined, will cause irreparable harm to Stoller's property rights. 53. Stoller is entitled to injunctive relief against Moon under 12 O.S. § 1381. Sixth Claim for Relief (Trespass) 54. Moon's conduct, as well as Moon's predecessor's conduct, constitutes a continuing trespass. Moon does not have express or implied permission to use the Stoller Property, or any part of it. 55. Moon's conduct has injured Stoller. Seventh Claim for Relief (Ejectment) 56. Title to the Stoller Property, including the portion purportedly covered by the Courtyard Easement, belongs solely to Stoller who has the exclusive right to possess, occupy, and enjoy the Stoller Property to the exclusion of all others. 57. Moon has no right, estate, title, lien or interest in or to the Stoller Property or any part thereof. 58. Moon continues to occupy and has physical possession of a portion of the Stoller Property. 59. Stoller has elected to and does hereby demand that Moon quit, leave, vacate, and completely surrender possession of the Stoller Property described in the Courtyard Easement. 60. Moon is in wrongful possession and occupation of a real property belonging to Stoller. 61. Stoller is entitled to a judgment ejecting Moon and all persons or entities claiming by, through or under them, from the Stoller Property. Request for Relief Stoller requests judgment in his favor and against Defendants, and each of them jointly and severally, as follows: That the Court enter a judgment declaring the parties’ relative rights to use the Stoller Property, including that the Courtyard Easement is void and no other easement exists, or alternatively, the scope of any easement; that the Court enter judgment declaring that Stoller is the owner in fee simple of the Stoller Property, that Moon has no right, title, estate, lien, or interest therein, and that Stoller’s title be forever quieted as against Moon and all persons claiming by, through, or under Moon; that the Court enter judgment for damages for Moon’s overuse of any easement; that the Court enter judgment for damages for Moon’s breach of the Courtyard Easement; that the Court enter judgment permanently enjoining Moon and any successor from using Stoller’s Property; that the Court enter judgment ejecting Moon from the property described in the Courtyard Easement; that the Court enter judgment for damages, actual and punitive, for Moon’s trespass; that damages collectively in excess of $75,000 be awarded; and that the Court enter any other relief to which Stoller may be entitled, legal or equitable, including attorney's fees, costs, and interest. Doerner Saunders Daniel & Anderson, LLP By: Tom Q. Ferguson, OBA No. 12288 Ty J. Gilmore, OBA No. 34664 Two West Second Street, Suite 700 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103-3117 (918) 581-1211 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff Mailing Address: 6585 S Yale Ave #1110 Tulsa, OK 74136 TRUSTEE'S DEED THIS INDENTURE, MADE THIS _4th_ day of _December_ ________, 2024 between Michael R. Bridges and Barbara J. Bridges, Trustees of the Michael R. Bridges Revocable Trust dated December 27, 2022 AND Barbara J. Bridges and Michael R. Bridges, Trustees of the Barbara J. Bridges Revocable Trust dated December 27, 2022, Grantor(s) and David Alan Stoller, a single man, Grantee(s). WITNESSETH: That in consideration of the sum of TEN and ------------N0/100 Dollars, and other good and valuable consideration, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, Grantors do by these presents, grant, bargain, sell and convey unto David Alan Stoller, a single man, the following described real estate situated in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, to-wit: The East Twenty (20) feet of Lot Seven (7), and All of Lot Eight (8), Block One (1), THE VILLAS OF TUSCANY, a Subdivision in the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, according to the recorded Plat No. 5666. ALSO KNOWN AS: Lot "D" VILLAS OF TUSCANY, a Subdivision in the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, according to the recorded Plat No. 5666. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same together with all and singular the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging or in any wise appertaining forever. AND Grantor(s), for Themselves as Trustee(s), and for any person having any beneficial interest in the Trust, do covenant with Grantee, its heirs and assigns, that Grantor(s), as Trustee(s), has (have) not made, done, executed or suffered any act or thing whatsoever whereby title to the real estate described above, or any part thereof, now or at any time hereafter shall be imperiled, charged or encumbered in any manner whatsoever, and that Grantor(s) will forever warrant and defend the title against all persons lawfully claiming any interest therein through or under the Grantor(s); IN WITNESS THEREOF, Grantor(s), have/has executed this instrument the day and year first written. Michael R. Bridges and Barbara J. Bridges, Trustees of the Michael R. Bridges Revocable Trust dated December 27, 2022 BY: [signature] Michael R Bridges, Trustee BY: [signature] Barbara J Bridges, Trustee Barbara J. Bridges and Michael R. Bridges, Trustees of the Barbara J. Bridges Revocable Trust dated December 27, 2022 BY: [signature] Barbara J. Bridges Trustee BY: [signature] Michael R. Bridges, Trustee ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF Oklahoma COUNTY OF Tulsa Before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State on this 4th day of December 2023, 2024 personally appeared, Michael R. Bridges and Barbara J. Bridges, Trustees of the Michael R. Bridges Revocable Trust dated December 27, 2022 AND Barbara J. Bridges and Michael R. Bridges, Trustees of the Barbara J. Bridges Revocable Trust dated December 27, 2022, to me known to be the identical person(s) who subscribed their names to the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that they executed the same as their free and voluntary act and deed, and the free and voluntary act and deed of said trust for the uses and purposes therein set forth. Given under my hand and seal the day and year last above written. [signature] Notary Public My Commission Expires: 10-21-2025 Commission No.: J0138624 Notary Public State of Oklahoma LAURYN CERRINGTON TULSA COUNTY COMMISSION #21013826 Comm. Exp. 10-21-2025 OAG 20241 - INDIVIDUAL Exhibit to Deed AFFIDAVIT OF LAND OR MINERAL OWNERSHIP: INDIVIDUAL STATE OF OKLAHOMA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF TULSA ) TO: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA Before me, the undersigned David Alan Stoller (list legal name and any aliases) (the "Affiant"), who, having been first duly sworn, deposes and states as of the date of this Affidavit: 1. I am eighteen (18) years of age or older and have personal knowledge of the statements made herein. 2. I have personal knowledge of the statements made herein 3. I am: [ ] a citizen of the United States; or [X] not a citizen of the United States, but an alien who is or shall become a bona fide resident of the State of Oklahoma. 4. I acquired title to the real property identified in the Deed to which this Affidavit is attached (the "Property"). 5. This Affidavit is executed in accordance with and pursuant to 60 O.S. § 121, which provides in part as follows: No alien or any person who is not a citizen of the United States shall acquire title to or own land in this state either directly or indirectly through a business entity or trust, except as hereinafter provided, but he or she shall have and enjoy in this state such rights as to personal property as are, or shall be accorded a citizen of the United States under the laws of the nation to which such alien belongs, or by the treaties of such nation with the United States, except as the same may be affected by the provisions of Section 121 et seq. of this title or the Constitution of this state. Provided, however, the requirements of this subsection shall not apply to a business entity that is engaged in regulated interstate commerce in accordance with federal law. 6. I acknowledge and understand that section 121 generally prohibits an alien or person who is not a citizen of the United States from acquiring title to or owning land in the State of Oklahoma. I further acknowledge and understand that section 121 does not prohibit an alien who is or who shall become a bona fide resident of the State of Oklahoma from acquiring title to or owning land in the State of Oklahoma. 7. I acquired title to the Property in compliance with the requirements of 60 O.S. § 121 and no funding source was used in the sale or transfer of the Property in violation of section 121 or any other state or federal law. 8. I acknowledge and understand that making or causing to be made a false statement in this affidavit may subject me to criminal prosecution for perjury and/or being liable for actual damages suffered or incurred by any person or other entity as a result or consequence of the making of or reliance upon such false statement. FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT. [signature] AFFIANT Date 12-06-24 The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of December 2024 by David Alan Stoller. My Commission Expires: 1/27/2028 My Commission Number: 99019241 NOTARY PUBLIC Lisa A. Evans Commission Exp. 01-27-2028 Commission #99019241
Disclaimer: This content is sourced from publicly available court records. Crazy Civil Court is an entertainment platform and does not provide legal advice. We are not lawyers. All information is presented as-is from public filings.