562 S.W.3d 622
Tex. App.2018Background
- Clay and Erin Ammerman bought Lot 28 in The Ranches of Clear Creek (2006); Johnny and Angela Wilson bought contiguous Lot 29 the same year. The subdivision covenants (Covenants) required ARC (Architectural Review Committee) approval for improvements and defined a three-acre Building Envelope for each lot.
- The Ammermans built a barndominium (ARC-approved) and later constructed a shed outside their Building Envelope (2012) and enlarged it (2014). The Wilsons sought ARC approval to build a retirement home on Lot 29 and obtained approval in early 2016.
- In Jan. 2016 the Ammermans sued the Association and the Wilsons for breach of covenants and declaratory relief, alleging the Wilsons’ approved building location violated Article VI §9 (distance/placement of Building Envelopes). They sought injunctive relief, which was denied.
- The Wilsons counterclaimed that the Ammermans violated covenants by lacking a required two-car garage and by constructing the shed without written ARC approval and outside the Building Envelope.
- The trial court granted summary judgment dismissing the Ammermans’ claims against the Association and the Wilsons (limitation and no-breach grounds) and later granted summary judgment for the Wilsons on their counterclaims. The court of appeals affirmed dismissal of Ammermans’ claims against Association and Wilsons but reversed summary judgment for the Wilsons on their counterclaims and remanded those counterclaims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ammerman) | Defendant's Argument (Association/Wilsons) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ammermans’ claims that Association/Wilsons breached Article VI §9 are time‑barred | Limitations did not begin until ARC approved changed build location (2015–2016) or discovery rule deferred accrual because change was inherently undiscoverable | Building Envelopes were predetermined in 2006; Ammermans knew potential locations in 2006, so claims accrued then and are barred by 4‑year statute | Held: Claims accrued/ were discoverable in 2006; limitations bar Ammermans’ claims — summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether Ammermans raised fact issue that Association acted arbitrarily or capriciously under Tex. Prop. Code §202.004 | ARC acted arbitrarily in approving Wilsons’ site; letters show an Approval that changed prior platting | No evidence Building Envelope was ever changed; §202.004 presumes reasonableness and Ammermans failed to rebut the presumption | Held: No evidence of envelope modification or rebuttal of presumption; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether Wilsons’ counterclaims against Ammermans were time‑barred | (Argued on appeal) Ammermans contended limitations should bar Wilsons’ counterclaims | Wilsons relied on Ammermans’ admissions and moved for summary judgment; Ammermans failed to plead limitations as affirmative defense in trial court | Held: Limitations defense not pleaded; trial court did not err in denying dismissal on that ground |
| Whether trial court properly granted summary judgment for Wilsons on counterclaims (garage and shed violations) | Evidence (porte‑cochere, garage space, ARC emails approving shed, covenants’ lakefront exception) raised fact issues about compliance/approval | Wilsons argued Ammerman testimony admitted violations (no two‑car garage; shed not behind residence; no written approval; shed inside 100‑ft setback) | Held: Ammermans produced more than scintilla of evidence creating genuine fact issues as to garage and shed approvals/variances; summary judgment for Wilsons reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Richardson v. Oncor Elec. Delivery Co., 539 S.W.3d 252 (Tex. 2018) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- KCM Fin. LLC v. Bradshaw, 457 S.W.3d 70 (Tex. 2015) (defendant may obtain traditional summary judgment by negating an element or proving an affirmative defense)
- Cosgrove v. Cade, 468 S.W.3d 32 (Tex. 2015) (accrual of breach‑of‑contract claim when contract is breached and discovery rule limits)
- Exxon Corp. v. Emerald Oil & Gas Co., 348 S.W.3d 194 (Tex. 2011) (four‑year limitations for breach of contract and discovery‑rule principles)
- Diversicare Gen. Partner, Inc. v. Rubio, 185 S.W.3d 842 (Tex. 2005) (burden on movant to conclusively establish accrual date when asserting limitations)
- KPMG Peat Marwick v. Harrison Cty. Hous. Fin. Corp., 988 S.W.2d 746 (Tex. 1999) (limitations as affirmative defense; burden rules for summary judgment)
- Holy Cross Church of God in Christ v. Wolf, 44 S.W.3d 562 (Tex. 2001) (accrual is a question of law)