Jerri Bates v. Kingspark and Whitehall Civic Improvement Association
01-11-00487-CV
Tex. App.May 3, 2012Background
- KWCIA sued Bates for violations of subdivision covenants, seeking injunctive relief, statutory damages, and attorney’s fees.
- Bates, pro se, disputed the charges; KWCIA attached sworn affidavits, photos, and prior notices of covenant violations.
- Trial court granted summary judgment and issued a detailed permanent injunction enforcing covenant compliance.
- Bates argued there were material factual disputes and the injunction was overly broad and referenced another document.
- Court of Appeals held there was no factual dispute as to the trailer violation, but other covenant issues remained fact-dependent and the injunction too broad.
- This ruling resulted in affirming the trailer-related relief and remanding on remaining issues, including attorney’s fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court properly grant summary judgment on all covenant violations? | Bates contends genuine material facts disputed. | KWCIA showed Bates violated covenants with photographic and testimonial evidence. | Only trailer violation upheld; remaining covenants unresolved, requiring remand. |
| Is the injunction overly broad or ambiguously drafted? | Injunction too broad and relies on another document. | Injunction specific and tailored to enforce covenants. | Remaining portions of injunction improper; affirmed trailer-related relief and remanded rest. |
Key Cases Cited
- Webb v. Glenbrook Owners Ass’n, Inc., 298 S.W.3d 374 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009) (injunctions must be specific and not overbroad)
- Pilarcik v. Emmons, 966 S.W.2d 474 (Tex. 1998) (interpretation of covenants and ambiguous language standard)
- Uptegraph v. Sandalwood Civic Club, 312 S.W.3d 918 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010) (restrictive covenants interpreted; ambiguity standard)
- Bank United v. Greenway Improvement Ass’n, 6 S.W.3d 705 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999) (primary duty is to ascertain intent of covenant language)
- Jim Rutherford Invs., Inc. v. Terramar Beach Cmty. Ass’n, 25 S.W.3d 845 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000) (injunction factors when enforcing covenants; irreparable injury not required)