Bridgestone Lakes Community Improvement Ass'n v. Bridgestone Lakes Development Co., 489 S.W.3d 118

Background

Developer built a three‑acre storm-water detention pond for a Harris County subdivision; HOA alleged construction deviated from approved plans, causing increased erosion and maintenance costs.
Key alleged variances evolved over the case: omission of a 30‑ft maintenance berm and addition of a perimeter sidewalk (Second Amended Petition); later alleged variable slopes (mixed 2:1 and 3:1) and a fence (Third Amended Petition).
In 2008 the Developer, utility district, and HOA executed a Detention Pond Maintenance Agreement: Developer deposited $25,000 for maintenance; HOA agreed to cover excess costs after those funds were exhausted.
The HOA sued Developer and three former HOA directors for breach of fiduciary duty, bad faith, fraud, negligence, gross negligence, and willful misconduct; defendants moved for summary judgment addressing claims tied to the berm and sidewalk.
Trial court granted interlocutory traditional summary judgment dismissing all claims (including those based on variable slopes that defendants had not expressly moved against); the Court of Appeals reversed as to the variable‑slope‑based claims as error.
Post‑summary judgment developments: HOA’s rehearing motion (relying on newly obtained Conner deposition) was denied; HOA later filed a Fourth Amended Petition asserting claims based on plans submitted to the city/county (2001/2008), and the trial court granted defendants’ no‑evidence summary judgment as to those city/county‑plan claims; the bench indemnity award to directors was vacated pending remand.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by granting traditional SJ that dismissed claims not addressed in the SJ motion (variable‑slope claims)	Summary judgment improperly disposed of claims pleaded in the Third Amended Petition that defendants did not move against	Defendants argued their motion negated duty/causation generally and reply addressed slopes	Court: Reversed dismissal as to claims based on failure to build uniform 3:1 slopes — defendants did not move on that theory, so SJ granted greater relief than requested
Whether denial of HOA’s motion for rehearing (newly obtained Conner deposition and maintenance agreement) was an abuse of discretion	Rehearing should have been granted because Conner’s deposition and the maintenance agreement raised material fact issues	Defendants: HOA failed to show due diligence in obtaining the deposition or why evidence couldn’t have been produced earlier	Court: Affirmed denial — HOA did not show due diligence or that evidence was unavailable before SJ
Whether trial court properly granted defendants’ no‑evidence SJ as to claims based on plans submitted to City/County (2001/2008)	HOA pointed to an engineering cost estimate and argued foreseeability and causation (maintenance agreement limited liability to $25k)	Defendants: No evidence of causation or foreseeability that $25k estimate was unreasonable	Court: Affirmed no‑evidence SJ for those city/county‑plan claims — HOA failed to produce evidence of causation
Whether indemnity award to Directors was excessive and should stand	HOA contended the indemnity award was excessive and could be reduced	Directors argued indemnity by bylaw entitled them to fees unless found liable for gross negligence or willful misconduct	Court: Reversed modified final judgment (including indemnity award) and remanded because surviving HOA claims may affect the counterclaim outcome

Key Cases Cited

Exxon Corp. v. Emerald Oil & Gas Co., 331 S.W.3d 419 (Tex. 2010) (standard of de novo review for summary judgment)
Henkel v. Norman, 441 S.W.3d 249 (Tex. 2014) (movant must conclusively negate an essential element)
Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Merrell, 313 S.W.3d 837 (Tex. 2010) (expert opinion must address alternative causation theories)
FDIC v. Lenk, 361 S.W.3d 602 (Tex. 2012) (trial court may not grant SJ on grounds not presented)
McConnell v. Southside Indep. Sch. Dist., 858 S.W.2d 337 (Tex. 1993) (motion must expressly present summary‑judgment grounds)
Lehmann v. Har‑Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001) (general rule that SJ disposing claims not presented is reversible error)
G & H Towing Co. v. Magee, 347 S.W.3d 293 (Tex. 2011) (error may be harmless when omitted claim is precluded as a matter of law by other grounds)
City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (no‑evidence SJ standards; viewing evidence most favorably to nonmovant)
Waffle House, Inc. v. Williams, 313 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. 2010) (standard for relief based on newly discovered evidence in post‑judgment motions)
Sysco Food Servs., Inc. v. Trapnell, 890 S.W.2d 796 (Tex. 1994) (burden on party asserting affirmative defense)