D.R. Horton - Texas, Ltd. and DRHI, Inc. v. Savannah Properties Associates, L.P., 416 S.W.3d 217

Court of Appeals (Texas, Second District, Fort Worth) affirmed a summary judgment for Savannah Properties Associates, L.P. against D.R. Horton – Texas, Ltd. (DRH) and DRH I, Inc. on release, res judicata, novation, and limitations defenses, plus no-evidence breach claims.
First suit involved DRH/DRHI vs Savannah/CHS over 800 lots in Savannah Addition; settlement merged the Horton and Continental contracts and released DRH/DRHI from related claims.
Settlement paragraph 6 released all claims related to the Horton Contract, Continental Contract, Amended Contract, or Savannah Addition; paragraph 7 preserved surviving duties under the Amended Contract and related documents.
Second suit (2009) asserted breach of contract, breach of warranty, and negligence for soil preparation; Savannah asserted release defense (and later res judicata, novation, limitations).
Trial court granted Savannah’s release and related defenses and no-evidence summary judgment on breach/warranty/negligence; Horton/DRHI appealed; the court affirmed, noting the release was dispositive and that amended pleadings post-submission without leave could not defeat the release.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of a continuance for discovery was an abuse of discretion	Horton/DRHI sought more time to depose experts and complete discovery	Savannah argues no error; movant failed to show needed evidence and due diligence	No abuse; continuance denial affirmed
Whether the settlement release bars the second suit’s claims	Claims fall outside the release due to surviving Amended Contract duties	Release covers claims arising from Horton/Continental Amended Contract and Savannah Addition	Release dispositive; claims released; affirmed on release defense
Whether the fraudulent inducement claim (added after the hearing) survives no-evidence judgment	Fraudulent inducement pleaded in later amendments should be considered	Amendments filed after hearing without leave cannot be considered; no-evidence proper	No error; amendments filed post-hearing without court permission cannot defeat summary judgment on this claim
Whether need to address res judicata/noviation/limitations and no-evidence breach/warranty/negligence claims given release	These issues were raised	Release controls; other issues moot if release bars claims	Release control; other issues unnecessary to resolve; judgment affirmed on release

BMC Software Belg., N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. 2002) (standard for abuse-of-discretion review of continuance/summary judgment)
In re Nitla S.A. de C.V., 92 S.W.3d 419 (Tex. 2002) (orig. proceeding; standard for not substituting own judgment in continuance)
Ford Motor Co. v. Castillo, 279 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. 2009) (affidavits and Rule 166a(g) continuance prerequisites)
Two Thirty Nine Joint Venture, 145 S.W.3d 150 (Tex. 2004) (factors for evaluating continuance for discovery)
Taylor v. Sunbelt Mgmt., Inc., 905 S.W.2d 743 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1995) (amendments after summary judgment hearing without leave not considered)
W. Tex. Gas, Inc. v. 297 Gas Co., 864 S.W.2d 681 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1993) (amendments after hearing without leave not considered)
Austin v. Countrywide Homes Loans, 261 S.W.3d 68 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008) (need for leave to amend after summary judgment hearing)
Beaumont v. Excavators & Constrs., 870 S.W.2d 123 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1993) (contractual releases and non-parties' duties limitations)
Keck, Mahin & Cate v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 20 S.W.3d 692 (Tex. 2000) (parol evidence limits on release interpretation)