in Re Richard W. Jackson and Lisa C. Jackson
03-17-00849-CV
| Tex. App. | Jan 2, 2018Background
- Relators (Richard W. Jackson and Lisa C. Jackson) sought a writ of mandamus and emergency stay after a Travis County court dissolved a temporary injunction that had prevented recording amendments to restrictive covenants.
- The contested amendment (to prohibit rentals under 90 days) was the sole amendment at issue and was recorded after the temporary injunction was dissolved.
- Real Parties in Interest (Cox and Ramsey) moved to dissolve the injunction; they also agreed not to record any further amendments during trial proceedings.
- Cox and Ramsey assert Relators misled the trial court at the temporary-injunction hearing (failure to disclose prior notice and campaign materials sent to lot owners) and that subsequent discovery revealed those misrepresentations.
- The trial court later interpreted the restrictive covenants as a matter of law in favor of Cox and Ramsey; Relators then filed a Sixth Amended Petition adding new claims based on the recorded amendment.
- Cox and Ramsey argue the mandamus petition is moot because the relief sought (reinstating the injunction to prevent recording) is impossible— the amendment already was recorded—and contend Relators’ harms are self-inflicted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus is moot because the amendment was recorded | Relators argue a live controversy remains because their DJ claim seeks interpretation of covenant amendment requirements generally | Cox & Ramsey say mandamus relief sought (reinstating injunction to prevent recording) is moot because the amendment already was recorded and no further amendment will be recorded | Mandamus relief is moot as to preventing recording because the amendment was recorded before filing; mootness doctrine cited |
| Whether Relators had a live claim supporting the injunction | Relators maintain their claims justify the injunction | Cox & Ramsey: the claims underlying the injunction were either nonsuited or dismissed by summary judgment; they did not state Relators had no live claims, only described status | Court treated dissolution as within trial court discretion given pleadings and rulings; defendants’ description of claim status was accurate |
| Whether changed circumstances justified dissolution of injunction | Relators asserted no changed circumstances | Cox & Ramsey identified two: (1) discovery showing Relators misled the court about notice/due process; (2) the trial court reversed its legal view of covenants | Changed circumstances (misleading statements and legal reversal) supported dissolution; trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether filing Sixth Amended Petition supports mandamus relief | Relators argue the amended pleading and recorded amendment altered the case, warranting relief | Cox & Ramsey argue harm is self-inflicted: Relators chose to add new claims and the covenants already prohibited rentals without developer consent | Relators’ choice to amend is not a proper basis for mandamus; not a basis to reinstate an injunction already moot |
| Whether Section 4 of Article I required AAC recommendation/notice for amendment | Relators argued Architectural Control Authority recommendation/notice required | Cox & Ramsey: Section 4’s standalone process (majority of lot owners execute and record instrument) governs and does not require AAC recommendation/notice (those are in Article IX) | Trial court granted partial summary judgment for defendants on Section 4 interpretation; reargument of summary judgment is not proper mandamus ground |
Key Cases Cited
- F.D.I.C. v. Nueces County, 886 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1994) (mootness principles can defeat equitable relief where requested relief is impossible to grant)
- In re Uresti, 377 S.W.3d 696 (Tex. 2012) (mandamus relief and mootness considerations in appellate review of interlocutory matters)