High Mountain Ranch Group, LLC v. Elbert L. Niece
532 S.W.3d 513
| Tex. App. | 2017Background
- High Mountain Ranch Group owns two adjacent commercial-zoned parcels in the Glendale subdivision; Lot 34 is subject to Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions (DCRs) limiting it to residential use and imposing setbacks.
- High Mountain attempted a Chapter 201 petition to remove Lot 34’s restrictions but failed to obtain sufficient signatures; it then sued for declaratory judgment seeking a ruling that the DCRs are invalid, unenforceable, or should be modified.
- Defendants (including Niece, GT Land, Hernandez, Saucedo) moved for summary judgment or otherwise opposed the suit; trial court concluded no justiciable controversy existed and dismissed High Mountain’s claims with prejudice.
- The trial court awarded attorney fees to several defendants (Niece $30,000; GT Land $23,750; Hernandez $26,580; Saucedo $10,875); High Mountain challenged the fee awards based on allegedly untimely expert disclosures.
- On appeal, the court reviewed ripeness/justiciability de novo and attorney-fee evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ripeness / Justiciability of declaratory claim | High Mountain: inability to sell Lot 34 due to DCRs creates a concrete controversy and imminent injury; Chapter 201 petition and nonparticipation by owners ripened dispute | Defendants: Lot 34 is vacant, no use or violation alleged, no threatened enforcement or immediate litigation — dispute is speculative | Court: No justiciable controversy; claim not ripe; dismissal affirmed |
| Effect of Chapter 201 petition process | High Mountain: petition process and opposition by lot owners created ripening controversy | Defendants: Chapter 201 requires only signatures; nonresponse is not objection; failure to secure signatures shows nothing | Court: Chapter 201 activity did not create ripening seeds of inevitable litigation; petition failure does not render dispute ripe |
| Attorney-fee awards vs. timeliness of expert designations (Niece & Saucedo) | High Mountain: attorney-fee experts were designated late; testimony should be excluded and fees denied | Defendants: requests for fees were pleaded from outset; defendants provided sufficient disclosures, offered invoices, and trial court offered continuance if needed | Court: Trial court did not abuse discretion—no unfair surprise or prejudice; fee testimony admissible and fees reasonable |
| Preservation of challenge to GT Land / Hernandez fee awards | High Mountain: all appellees failed timely to designate fee experts, so none should recover fees | Defendants: (procedural) High Mountain did not preserve objections at trial as to GT Land and Hernandez | Court: Complaint not preserved on appeal; challenge forfeited |
Key Cases Cited
- Mayhew v. Town of Sunnyvale, 964 S.W.2d 922 (Tex. 1998) (ripeness/justiciability reviewed de novo)
- Save Our Springs Alliance v. City of Austin, 149 S.W.3d 674 (Tex. App.—Austin 2004) (UDJA does not expand subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Brooks v. Northglen Ass’n, 141 S.W.3d 158 (Tex. 2004) (declaratory judgment requires an actual justiciable controversy)
- Waco Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Gibson, 22 S.W.3d 849 (Tex. 2000) (ripeness requires facts showing injury occurred or is likely to occur)
- Patterson v. Planned Parenthood of Houston & Se. Tex., Inc., 971 S.W.2d 439 (Tex. 1998) (constitutional roots of justiciability doctrines; prohibition on advisory opinions)
- Trinity Settlement Servs., LLC v. 417 S.W.3d 494 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013) (claimant need only show ripening seeds of controversy for declaratory relief)
- Aluminum Co. of Am. v. Bullock, 870 S.W.2d 3 (Tex. 1994) (trial court’s discretion to admit late expert testimony evaluated for abuse of discretion)
- Beard Family P’ship v. Commercial Indem. Ins. Co., 116 S.W.3d 839 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003) (lack of unfair surprise can cure late fee-expert designation)