Elwyn D. Shumway v. Whispering Hills of Comal County Texas Property Owners Association, Inc., 03-15-00513-CV

Shumway owns two lots in Whispering Hills purchased and marketed as commercially usable; deed and contract for deed, recorded 1984, restrict lots to "solely for residential purposes" except those "designated for business purposes" on the subdivision plat.
No lots were designated for business on the subdivision plat (Shumway admits this).
In 2014 Shumway requested Association approval to use the lots commercially; Association refused based on the recorded restrictions.
Shumway sued in February 2015 seeking a declaration that his lots may be used for residential or commercial purposes.
The Association moved to dismiss under Tex. R. Civ. P. 91a on two grounds: (1) the pleadings and exhibits conclusively show the lots are residential-only; (2) the claim is barred by the statute of limitations.
The trial court granted the Rule 91a motion, awarded fees to the Association; the written order did not state which ground(s) the court relied on.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the statute of limitations bars Shumway's declaratory-judgment claim	Shumway argued the court orally ruled limitations; he contended the dismissal on limitations was erroneous	Association argued the claim was time-barred because the dispute arose more than four years earlier	Court affirmed dismissal but treated the written order as controlling and required Shumway to negate all possible grounds; court did not reverse on the limitations ground because the written order was non-specific
Whether Shumway's pleadings have any legal basis given the recorded restrictions	Shumway sought declaration permitting commercial use despite recorded deed/contract language and his admission that plat contains no business designations	Association argued Shumway’s own pleadings and exhibits conclusively show the lots are limited to residential use, so the claim has no basis in law under Rule 91a	Court affirmed dismissal on the unchallenged ground: pleadings established no legal basis for relief (lots restricted to residential use)

Parkhurst v. Office of Attorney Gen. of Tex., 481 S.W.3d 400 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2015) (appellant must negate every ground trial court could have relied on when written order is non-specific)
Guillory v. Seaton, LLC, 470 S.W.3d 237 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015) (Rule 91a permits dismissal where petition alleges facts that, if true, bar recovery)
Strather v. Dolgencorp of Tex., Inc., 96 S.W.3d 420 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002) (appellate review looks only to the written order to determine trial court’s reasons)
Adams v. First Nat’l Bank of Bells/Savoy, 154 S.W.3d 859 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005) (unchallenged grounds supporting judgment must be addressed on appeal or judgment will be affirmed on those grounds)
Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181 (Tex. 1978) (pro se litigants are held to same procedural and substantive standards as attorneys)