Country Community Timberlake Village, L.P. v. HMW Special Utility District of Harris
438 S.W.3d 661
Tex. App.2014Background
- Timberlake Village is a gated subdivision in Harris County developed by Country Community.
- A smaller 3.9332-acre Small Tract on Loblolly Lane was not subdivided into Timberlake Village but was restricted by the Small Tract Declaration.
- TVHA administers covenants for Timberlake Village; the Small Tract Declaration restricts the Small Tract to residential use and allows enforcement by Small Tract owners only.
- HMW Special Utility District condemned the Small Tract residential-use restriction to build a utility site and sought damages; TVHA intervened and litigation expanded to include multiple subdivision owners.
- Trial court framed damages with a single jury question: difference in fair market value of each owner’s Timberlake Village property before and after condemnation; plaintiffs sought damages; HMW cross-appealed on several standing and evidentiary issues.
- The court held the homeowners and Country Community lacked standing to recover condemnation damages and vacated the trial court’s judgment, dismissing the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Country Community and homeowners have standing to sue for condemnation damages. | Country Community and homeowners argue the Small Tract Declaration was intended to benefit Timberlake Village. | HMW contends no privity or general plan ties Timberlake Village owners to the Small Tract restrictions. | No standing; Small Tract owners only have enforcement rights; general plan not shown; case vacated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hooper v. Lottman, 171 S.W. at 270 (Tex.Civ.App.-El Paso 1914) (establishes implied reciprocal rights under general plan)
- Evans v. Pollock, 796 S.W.2d 465 (Tex. 1990) (elements of general scheme or plan for development)
- Ski Masters of Tex., LLC v. Heinemeyer, 269 S.W.3d 662 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2008) (standing depends on privity or general plan/scheme)
- Wasson Interests, Ltd. v. Adams, 405 S.W.3d 971 (Tex.App.-Tyler 2013) (restrictive covenant enforceable only with common benefit or privity)
- Nelson v. Flache, 487 S.W.2d 843 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1972) (standing to enforce covenants limited by location and plan)
- Jobe v. Watkins, 458 S.W.2d 945 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1970) (subdivision covenants enforceable among related parcels)
- Moody v. City of Univ. Park, 278 S.W.2d 912 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1955) (owners of different subdivisions have no standing to enforce covenants of another)
- Russell Realty Co. v. Hall, 233 S.W. 996 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1921) (lack of standing when unrelated subdivision interests)
- Calvary Temple v. Taylor, 288 S.W.2d 868 (Tex.Civ.App.-Galveston 1956) (recitals cannot enlarge operative enforcement provisions)
- City of Heath v. Duncan, 152 S.W.3d 147 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2004) (recitals and general plan analysis in enforcement)
- Glenbrook Patiohome Owners Ass’n v. Harris County Flood Control Dist., 933 S.W.2d 570 (Tex.App.-Houston (1st Dist.) 1996) (damages where parcel ownership differs within subdivision)
- Lehmann v. Wallace, 510 S.W.2d 675 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1974) (test for general building or neighborhood scheme)
- Pilarcik v. Emmons, 966 S.W.2d 474 (Tex. 1998) (contract interpretation of covenants in deed restrictions)
- Gardner v. Smith, 168 S.W.2d 278 (Tex.Civ.App.-Beaumont 1942) (recitals cannot override clear operative terms)