Marvin Creek HOA Easement Lawsuit: A Deep Dive into Property Rights, HOA Authority, and a Neighborhood Trail Dispute

Overview

The “Marvin Creek HOA easement lawsuit” refers to an unfolding dispute in the Village of Marvin, North Carolina, where homeowners in the Marvin Creek subdivision challenged a public trail project after the homeowners association (HOA) granted an easement. The controversy touches several hot-button issues in community governance: What power does an HOA truly have to grant easements over common areas? When a public greenway or connector trail is proposed across or alongside private property, what rights do adjacent owners have? How do local ordinances, recorded covenants, and state HOA statutes intersect?

This longform explainer unpacks the people, the documents, the timeline, and the legal questions at stake, translating jargon into plain English and mapping out likely paths forward. While the courtroom will ultimately settle the complaint, understanding the moving parts helps any HOA resident—or board member—navigate similar conflicts.

Setting the Scene: Marvin Creek, Trails, and a Community on Edge

Marvin, N.C., is a fast-growing, suburban village in Union County south of Charlotte. Greenways and multi-use paths are popular as communities prioritize recreation, connectivity, and conservation. In this setting, the Marvin Creek HOA became a focal point after a path—referred to locally as a “connector” trail—was planned to link neighborhoods.

In late 2024 and early 2025, residents including Tori (Victoria) and Chris Comiskey objected to a proposed path behind their home and questioned whether the Marvin Creek HOA had the authority to grant an easement for the project over HOA property. The family filed suit seeking to invalidate or “give back” the easement, arguing the HOA exceeded its powers under the covenants and North Carolina law. Local coverage documented these events, including the core claim that the HOA board lacked authority to convey a public-use easement across HOA land.

The dispute did not arise in a vacuum. Marvin had already been wrestling with trail building, permitting, and environmental issues along nearby corridors, including the Tullamore Trail, where questions about floodplain permitting and conservation rules surfaced. That broader backdrop—plus village-wide debates over funding greenways—made the Marvin Creek connector especially contentious. 

What Exactly Is an Easement—and Why It Matters Here

An easement is a legal right to use someone else’s land for a limited purpose. Common easements include utility easements (for power lines, sewers), access easements (to cross one parcel to reach another), and recreational or trail easements (allowing the public to pass along a defined corridor).

Key concepts to understand:

• Dominant vs. servient estate: The land that benefits from the easement (dominant) and the land burdened by it (servient).
  
• Scope and use: Easements are defined by scope. A private access easement does not automatically authorize public recreation; a public trail easement is materially different from a private pathway for residents only.
  
• Creation and authority: Easements may arise by recorded grant, by plat dedication, by prescription (long use), or by statute. The party granting the easement must actually hold the legal authority to do so—either as owner of the land or as an entity given that power by covenants, plats, or statute.
  

In HOA-governed communities, who controls easements over common areas versus private lots depends on the recorded Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and other governing documents (bylaws, articles of incorporation), plus any applicable municipal ordinances and state law. If a declaration explicitly forbids public use of common areas, a later attempt by the HOA board to convey public-use rights may be ultra vires (beyond its powers) unless owners approve a proper amendment.

The Heart of the Dispute: Competing Claims of Authority

The Homeowners’ Position

• No public use in the common area: According to opponents, the Marvin Creek declaration states, in substance, that HOA common areas are private and may not be opened to public use. Thus, a public trail easement would conflict with the governing documents. One resident quoted to local media emphasized their covenants “say it really clearly… no public use on our private HOA common area.”
  
• HOA exceeded its powers: The board allegedly executed an easement without the required owner vote or authority to dedicate HOA land to a public use, rendering the grant invalid or voidable. Residents also point to a pattern of decisions made without adequate homeowner notice or consent.
  
• Property rights and privacy: A connector inviting through-traffic raises concerns about strangers travelling close to backyards, potential tree removal, loss of privacy, and changes to neighborhood character—all elements cited by trail opponents.
  
• Process and environmental worries: Critics also flagged permitting and environmental compliance issues elsewhere in the village’s trail building—including floodway constraints and endangered species habitat—as reasons for heightened scrutiny of any new connector.
  

The Village’s and HOA’s Position (as reported publicly)

• Economic and community benefits: Municipalities often argue that greenways and connectors enhance recreation, safety, connectivity, and property values while aligning with comprehensive plans and active-transportation goals.
  
• Reliance on the easement: If village staff and engineers believed an HOA-executed easement was valid, they may have advanced planning based on that record. Under North Carolina law, municipal staff also consider development ordinances and board approvals when greenways cross private lands or common areas.
  
• Pending litigation and limited comment: Public-sector defendants typically decline detailed comment while a case is active. In reporting at the time, village representatives indicated they would not discuss pending litigation.
  

Timeline: How the Marvin Creek Connector Became a Lawsuit

2023–2024: Discussion of connector trails intensifies in Marvin, part of broader efforts to expand local greenways and neighborhood links. Residents raise concerns at meetings and online. Petitions circulate urging cancelation of the connector and reversal of any easement approval by the HOA board. 

2024: As trail building elsewhere in Marvin draws regulators’ attention—including questions about floodplain permits and endangered species impacts—the trust gap widens. For some homeowners, the permitting controversies validate fears about rushing into the connector plan. 

January 2025: Tori and Chris Comiskey sue the Village of Marvin seeking to invalidate the connector trail easement they contend was improperly granted by the Marvin Creek HOA. Coverage highlights the argument that the HOA had no authority to convey a public easement across HOA common area in light of the declaration’s restrictions. The HOA reportedly considers amending bylaws to prevent similar issues in the future. 

First half of 2025: Case filings reflect the dispute proceeding in court, including an amended complaint and related briefing, while residents and village leaders continue to debate trail engineering and environmental review steps in parallel.

---

The Legal Framework: Covenants, Ordinances, and State HOA Law

1) The Declaration and Governing Documents

• Declarations control: In most North Carolina planned communities, the Declaration (CC&Rs) is the controlling instrument. If the declaration restricts common areas to private use by members and their guests, the board cannot, without a valid amendment, transform that area into a public way.
  
• Board powers vs. owner approvals: HOAs typically have authority to manage, maintain, and repair common elements. But they may not have unilateral power to burden common area with a new public easement—especially one that substantially changes use, impacts privacy, or diminishes exclusive resident benefits—unless the declaration explicitly grants that power or a proper owner vote approves it.
  

Residents claim the board “far exceeded” its authority by granting the connector easement in this case. Meeting records and correspondence circulating in the community referenced that critique; in parallel, petitioners urged the village to “nullify” the HOA-granted easement. 

2) Municipal Codes and Development Ordinances

• Greenways and easements: Local ordinances often empower a municipality to plan greenways and accept easements. But acceptance by a city or village does not cure defects in the grantor’s authority. If the grantor (here, an HOA) lacked the power to grant, the easement may be voidable. Marvin’s development code and ordinances address review of open space, greenways, and easements in site planning—yet they presuppose that the underlying property rights are properly obtained.
  

3) North Carolina HOA Statutes

• Chapter 47F (Planned Community Act): While the specifics of Marvin Creek’s governing regime depend on the declaration’s vintage and any transitional statutes, North Carolina’s Planned Community Act provides default rules on association powers, common element control, and owner rights. The crux is whether the association’s power to convey an interest in common area is limited or conditioned on owner approval.
  

When an HOA unilaterally encumbers common areas in ways not contemplated by the declaration—particularly by inviting public access—courts scrutinize whether the board acted ultra vires and whether owners suffered a material change in the nature of their property rights. (Residents and counsel in Marvin have publicly framed the dispute as just such an overstep.)

Core Legal Questions the Court Is Likely to Weigh

1. Was the easement truly “public” in nature?
   If the trail allows general public access (not limited to HOA members), it’s a qualitatively different burden than a private, members-only path across common area. That difference often triggers stricter consent requirements.
   
2. Did the HOA’s governing documents authorize the board to grant such an easement?
   The precise words in the declaration matter. If it says “no public use” on common areas, a grant enabling public passage directly conflicts with the declaration’s promise, bolstering a homeowner challenge.
   
3. What procedural steps were taken?
   Was there a recorded board resolution? A membership vote? Notice to owners? Was the easement recorded correctly with an officer’s certificate? Deviations can undermine validity.
   
4. What is the physical location of the easement?
   Is it entirely over HOA common area, or in any part over a homeowner’s lot or an area subject to limited common elements? If any portion implicates a private lot, the HOA’s authority would be even more constrained.
   
5. What reliance interests did the village assert?
   Municipal reliance does not cure a defective grant, but it can influence equitable arguments about remedies, especially if the village incurred costs in good-faith reliance on the recorded instrument.
   
6. Are there environmental or permitting defects independent of HOA authority?
   Separate permitting violations or endangered species concerns—raised elsewhere in Marvin’s trail network—could impact the project even if authority issues were resolved.
   
7. What do broader public votes and policy debates show?
   In March 2024, village referendums to raise taxes for greenways and related facilities reportedly failed by a wide margin (4-to-1), a signal of voter skepticism that can shape political, though not strictly legal, context.
   

Potential Outcomes—and What Each Would Mean

1. Easement declared invalid/voidable and rescinded (“give it back”)
   The court could find the HOA lacked authority, nullify the easement, and enjoin the village from constructing the connector over HOA land. That would vindicate the declaration’s private-use promises and set a local precedent that boards cannot unilaterally dedicate common areas to public use.
   
2. Easement upheld (with or without conditions)
   If the court finds the declaration allowed such a grant—or that owners ratified it—the easement might stand. The court could still impose conditions (e.g., hours, screening, buffers) or encourage the parties to craft a mitigation plan.
   
3. Settlement
   Many HOA disputes settle. A settlement might:
   
   • Re-site the connector away from sensitive areas or backyards;
     
   • Convert a “public” trail to a residents-only path (with enforcement and signage);
     
   • Add fencing, landscaping, or privacy berms;
     
   • Provide compensation to the HOA (or affected owners) for burdens and maintenance;
     
   • Require formal owner ratification by vote and an amendment clarifying future authority.
     
4. Bylaw/Declaration Amendments for the Future
   Independently of the lawsuit, the HOA may pursue amendments to clarify board powers, owner-approval thresholds, and public-use prohibitions—an issue the community reportedly began discussing after the controversy erupted.
   

Lessons for Homeowners and HOA Boards Everywhere

For Homeowners

• Read the declaration before you buy—and keep a copy handy.
  Your rights to privacy, access, and use of common areas live in those documents. Look for clauses about “public use,” “conveyance of common elements,” and voting thresholds.
  
• Track board agendas and minutes.
  Easements often appear as business items. If you see “easement,” ask early: Is it private or public? Over whose land? What’s the scope? What owner approvals are required?
  
• Understand the difference between HOA maintenance and new burdens.
  Boards can repair and maintain; encumbering land with new, public rights is another matter entirely.
  
• Organize respectfully and document concerns.
  Petitions, attendance at meetings, and public comments influence boards and municipal staff. Where environmental or permitting issues may exist, bring subject-matter experts to the discussion.
  
• Consider legal counsel early.
  An attorney can read your declaration, evaluate municipal codes, and advise on injunction timelines if you intend to challenge a project.
  

For HOA Boards

• Know your documents—and your limits.
  If the declaration restricts public use of common areas, do not sign any instrument granting public access unless you first obtain the owner approvals and amendments required.
  
• Get multiple legal opinions for unusual grants.
  Trail easements are not routine maintenance. Seek counsel on statutory compliance, owner-approval thresholds, and recording formalities.
  
• Engage owners early and often.
  Even when the law allows a board to act, legitimacy and community buy-in matter. Workshops, design charrettes, and surveys can surface better alignments and reduce conflict.
  
• Negotiate mitigations up front.
  Privacy fencing, lighting standards, hours of use, emergency access protocols, and cost-sharing for maintenance should be baked into any trail easement.
  
• Coordinate with the municipality on permitting and environmental review.
  Floodplain, wetland, and endangered species issues can derail a project. Build realistic schedules and ensure the village or city secures all required permits.
  

The Environmental and Permitting Overlay

Although the Marvin Creek case centers on HOA authority, the larger trail conversation in Marvin has included floodplain permitting, endangered species (notably the Carolina heelsplitter mussel), and potential stormwater impacts. Media reports noted federal and state attention to unpermitted or insufficiently reviewed trail segments in the area, as well as local engineering steps the village later took to address concerns. These environmental threads do not decide the HOA authority question—but they heighten homeowner scrutiny and can independently delay or alter trail plans.

Litigation Posture: What’s Publicly Known

Public dockets in early 2025 reflected filings by the Comiskeys in the dispute over the connector trail, and local coverage documented the core relief sought: invalidating the easement and stopping the project behind their home. As of the first half of 2025, briefing and amended pleadings were underway, with the village typically declining substantive comment due to the pending nature of the case. In parallel, the HOA reportedly considered tightening internal rules to prevent repeat controversies.

Frequently Asked Questions (Tailored to the Marvin Creek Dispute)

1) Can an HOA board grant a public trail easement over common area without a vote of the owners?
It depends on the declaration. Many do not permit the board to transform private common areas into public spaces without owner approval, especially where the change materially affects use, safety, or privacy. If the declaration bars “public use,” a public trail easement is likely impermissible absent a formal amendment approved by members.

2) If the municipality accepted the easement, does that make it valid?
No. Municipal acceptance does not cure a defect in the grantor’s authority. If the HOA lacked power to grant, the easement can be invalidated despite municipal reliance.

3) What if the easement is limited to “residents and guests” instead of the general public?
A residents-only path is closer to typical HOA amenities and may fit within existing powers, especially if the declaration contemplates trails or paths as common-area features. But the specific documents still control, and boards should obtain legal opinions before encumbering land.

4) How do floodplain and endangered species rules intersect with a trail easement?
They are separate regulatory layers. Even with a valid easement, the project can’t proceed without necessary permits. Conversely, environmental compliance doesn’t validate an easement granted without authority. Both boxes must be checked. 

5) Could the parties settle this case?
Very possibly. Settlements could move the alignment away from backyards, limit access hours, add privacy buffers, convert to residents-only use, or provide compensation and maintenance provisions—often coupled with a membership vote or amendment to clarify authority going forward.

6) If you live near a proposed trail, what should you do first?
Request copies of the recorded declaration and any easement instruments, review board minutes, ask whether membership approval was obtained, and consult counsel promptly if construction is imminent.

---

Practical Playbook: If Your HOA Faces a Similar Connector Proposal

1. Inventory the legal terrain.
   
   • Pull the Declaration (and any amendments), Bylaws, Articles, and Rules.
     
   • Identify any clauses on “public use,” “alienation of common areas,” voting thresholds for special actions, and board powers to grant easements.
     
2. Map the physical corridor.
   
   • Confirm whether the route sits wholly within HOA common area or touches private lots or limited common elements.
     
   • Commission a survey if boundaries or centerlines are unclear.
     
3. Define the easement’s scope in writing.
   
   • Public vs. residents-only.
     
   • Width, surfacing, lighting, hours, policing, maintenance, liability, emergency access, repairs after storms.
     
4. Sequence approvals and permits.
   
   • If membership approval is required, obtain it before signing any easement.
     
   • Ensure the municipality completes floodplain, wetland, endangered species, and other environmental reviews, plus construction permits.
     
5. Mitigate impacts.
   
   • Privacy fencing, landscaping, and berms;
     
   • Noise and lighting limits;
     
   • Wayfinding that steers users away from sensitive backyards.
     
6. Set up enforcement and funding.
   
   • Who maintains the path? Who pays?
     
   • What happens if rules (e.g., hours) are violated?
     
   • Indemnity and insurance provisions between the HOA and municipality.
     
7. Communicate relentlessly.
   
   • Hold workshops with residents; share drawings, cross-sections, and photo simulations; document feedback and incorporate feasible changes.
     

---

Why This Case Resonates Beyond Marvin Creek

HOAs sit at the boundary line between private communities and public infrastructure. Trails and greenways are popular and valuable—but they can provoke friction when they feel imposed, when the process is opaque, or when legal authority is shaky. The Marvin Creek litigation spotlights a core principle: HOA boards must stay within the four corners of their declarations, especially when converting private amenities into public corridors.

This dispute also highlights a planning lesson for municipalities: durable trail networks are built not just with engineering and permits but with legally sound property interests and social license from the communities they traverse.

---

What to Watch Next

• Judicial rulings on the easement’s validity: The central question is whether the HOA’s grant was authorized by the declaration or voidable and thus must be rescinded.
  
• Any membership votes or document amendments: The HOA may shore up its governance rules to avoid a repeat—clarifying thresholds for any future dedication of common areas.
  
• Route changes or design mitigations: Even outside the lawsuit, engineers may revise alignments and add buffers to reduce impacts near homes.
  
• Environmental clearances: Agency reviews (e.g., floodplain, Corps of Engineers where applicable) can alter timelines independently of HOA authority.

Bottom Line

The Marvin Creek HOA easement lawsuit is a case study in the limits of HOA power and the care required when communities interface with public infrastructure. Whether the court voids the easement, upholds it, or the parties settle, the lasting lesson is simple: authority first, alignment second, construction last. When boards, homeowners, and municipalities respect the order of operations—document authority, secure owner approvals where required, achieve environmental compliance, and build neighborhood support—greenways can coexist with privacy, property rights, and the promises embedded in a community’s covenants.

---

Sources reflected in this explainer

Local and regional reporting documented the Comiskeys’ lawsuit and the surrounding trail context in Marvin during January–March 2025; public village materials and ordinances provide the planning and regulatory backdrop. See, e.g., coverage of the lawsuit claim that the HOA lacked authority to grant a public easement; reporting on environmental and permitting scrutiny of nearby trail segments; and references to village development ordinances touching greenways and easements.