Hall v. Bean
416 S.W.3d 490
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Homeowners in Sands of Kahala Beach (Galveston) sought to sell hurricane-damaged lots to the city under a FEMA/State buyout grant that required acquired land to remain open space.
- HOA board members (the officers) sued for a temporary injunction and refused to execute releases needed for the city to purchase the lots; officers also attempted to amend bylaws to increase removal vote threshold.
- Homeowners counterclaimed for breach of fiduciary duty and tortious interference with sale; officers moved for partial summary judgment asserting volunteer-immunity under the federal Volunteer Protection Act (42 U.S.C. §14503) and Texas Business Organizations Code §22.235.
- Trial court orally granted officers’ motion in 2011 but failed to sign an order until 2012; remaining claims were non-suited and final judgment was entered; homeowners appealed.
- Officers relied solely on their affidavits stating they acted in good faith and not with gross negligence or willful misconduct; homeowners contended those affidavits were conclusory and insufficient to establish immunity.
- The court reviewed whether officers were entitled to summary judgment under §22.235 (state officer immunity) or §14503 (federal volunteer immunity).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §22.235 shields officers from liability | Homeowners: affidavits are conclusory; genuine fact issues exist about good faith/ordinary care/best interest | Officers: their sworn affidavits show they acted in good faith, with ordinary care, and reasonably believed actions served HOA | Summary judgment improper — affidavits were conclusory and did not establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law |
| Whether §14503 (Volunteer Protection Act) precludes liability | Homeowners: Act does not shield intentional misconduct; genuine fact issues exist about willful/grossly negligent/reckless conduct | Officers: affidavit statements that they did not intend harm or engage in gross negligence/reckless or flagrant indifference entitle them to immunity | Summary judgment improper — affidavits contained legal conclusions and conclusory denials insufficient to establish immunity |
| Whether trial court may be affirmed on other unraised grounds on appeal | Homeowners: challenge applicability of Act to HOA as nonprofit | Officers: argued presumption of good faith / lack of evidence of tortious-interference contracts | Court declined to consider new grounds raised for first time on appeal; remanded for further proceedings |
| Whether movants met summary-judgment burden to shift burden to nonmovant | Homeowners: dispute the sufficiency of affidavits; burden never shifted | Officers: relied on affidavits to show entitlement | Court: officers did not meet their burden; burden never shifted to homeowners |
Key Cases Cited
- Joe v. Two Thirty-Nine Joint Venture, 145 S.W.3d 150 (Tex. 2004) (standard for de novo review of summary judgment)
- Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co., 690 S.W.2d 546 (Tex. 1985) (movant must show no genuine issue of material fact and entitlement as a matter of law)
- Burrow v. Arce, 997 S.W.2d 229 (Tex. 1999) (conclusory fiduciary affidavits insufficient to support summary judgment)
- Mercer v. Daoran Corp., 676 S.W.2d 580 (Tex. 1984) (legal conclusions in affidavits cannot establish facts for summary judgment)