Jose Oyoque v. Garrett Henning, 09-17-00018-CV

Property dispute in Lake Chateau Woods, Montgomery County: Henning (lot 15C) sued after slab poured on lot 13C (originally owned by Roberto Eulloque; Jose Oyoque substituted after Eulloque’s death) allegedly violated a five-foot side setback in the subdivision restrictive covenants.
Multiple surveys conflicted: Cassurvey (retained by Oyoque/Eulloque) and DaRam found compliance; court-appointed Survtech found an encroachment. Survtech’s Steve Laughlin was the only surveyor allowed to testify at trial.
Henning sued (filed May 2014; first amended petition June 2016) seeking enforcement of covenants, declaratory relief, permanent mandatory injunction, monetary damages, and attorney’s fees.
Pretrial, Henning moved to strike Oyoque’s expert surveyors (Silvio Prieto of Cassurvey and Barry Adkins of DaRam) as untimely; the trial court granted the motion and excluded them. The court also struck one of Henning’s experts; only Survtech testified.
Jury found the slab encroached but that encroachment was slight, done in good faith, cost to remove would be great, and it did not diminish Henning’s property value; jury awarded no injunction, no monetary damages, and no attorney’s fees. Trial court denied Oyoque’s plea to the jurisdiction challenging Henning’s standing.
On appeal, the Ninth Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for new trial, holding the trial court abused its discretion by striking Oyoque’s experts where no Rule 194 disclosure request had been made.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Henning)	Defendant's Argument (Oyoque)	Held
1. Standing / Plea to jurisdiction	Henning asserted he has standing to enforce subdivision covenants under a neighborhood scheme	Oyoque argued covenants did not inure to Henning (seller reserved easement) so Henning lacked standing	Court: Denied plea; restrictive covenants showed intent to benefit present and future lot owners — standing upheld
2. Exclusion of defendant’s expert witnesses	Henning argued Oyoque’s expert designations were untimely under Docket Control Order and should be excluded	Oyoque argued no duty to designate experts absent a request for disclosure under Rules 194/195; exclusion was error	Court: Exclusion was an abuse of discretion because Rules 194/195 place disclosure obligation only upon request; error probably caused improper judgment — reversal and remand
3. Exclusion/limitation of Henning’s witnesses	(Not appealed by Henning)	Oyoque objected to some of Henning’s expert testimony	Court: Not reached on appeal (no relief would follow)
4. Motion for JNOV / disregard jury findings	Oyoque sought to disregard jury findings and JNOV arguing errors and insufficiency of evidence	Henning relied on jury verdict and court-appointed surveyor’s testimony	Court: Not reached due to reversal on expert exclusion issue

Houston Mun. Emps. Pension Sys. v. Ferrell, 248 S.W.3d 151 (Tex. 2007) (standard for plea to the jurisdiction review)
Tex. Dep't of Transp. v. Jones, 8 S.W.3d 636 (Tex. 1999) (plea to jurisdiction procedures)
Presidio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Scott, 309 S.W.3d 927 (Tex. 2010) (de novo review of jurisdictional rulings)
Hoff v. Nueces Cty., 153 S.W.3d 45 (Tex. 2004) (jurisdictional review principles)
Wasson Interests, Ltd. v. Adams, 405 S.W.3d 971 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2013) (enforcement of restrictive covenants and privity/general scheme doctrine)
Ski Masters of Tex., LLC v. Heinemeyer, 269 S.W.3d 662 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008) (neighborhood scheme enforcement)
E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. 1995) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238 (Tex. 1985) (abuse of discretion review)
McCraw v. Maris, 828 S.W.2d 756 (Tex. 1992) (reversal for evidentiary error requires probable effect on judgment)
City of Brownsville v. Alvarado, 897 S.W.2d 750 (Tex. 1995) (harmless error and the effect of evidentiary mistakes)