Kevin Tarr v. Lantana Southwest Homeowners' Association, Inc.
03-14-00714-CV
| Tex. App. | Mar 17, 2015Background
- Kevin Tarr operates Westlake Recovery House, a residential group home for men with addictions in a deed-restricted subdivision governed by Lantana Southwest HOA,” which argues the home breaches the four-point residential-use covenant; the covenant expressly allows uses authorized by federal/state law, including group homes under FHA/FSHAs; plaintiffs seek FHA/ADA/REAP protections and injunctive relief; the trial court granted multiple partial and final judgments; on appeal, Tarr argues the HOA failed to prove breach, residents are handicapped, and the injunction/fees are improper.
- The deed restrictions define residential use as single-family but include a federal/state-law exemption for protected uses, including group homes; Tarr asserted residents are handicapped under FHA/Texas FHA/ADA/ Rehabilitation Act; HOA sought relief via TRO, and later partial/final judgments by multiple judges; the final modified judgment awarded the HOA $88,000 in attorney’s fees and $35,000 appellate fees.
- The appellate brief argues the HOA bore the burden to show Tarr’s use falls outside protected residential use; Tarr contends statutory protections prohibit enforcement that excludes group homes; Tarr also contends residents are handicapped and thus protected; the injunction issued was void and unenforceable, affecting fee recoveries.
- The issues include whether the group home breaches the deed restriction, whether residents are handicapped/disabled under FHA/Texas FHA/ADA/ Rehabilitation Act, and whether attorney’s fees were warranted given a void injunction.
- The court should reverse and remand for trial, holding (i) the HOA failed to conclusively prove a breach because group homes are protected residential uses; (ii) there is a genuine material-fact issue as to whether residents are handicapped; (iii) the injunction is void and fees improper, requiring vacatur of the fee award and injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| breach of deed restriction | Tarr: group home is protected by 4.1 and thus a permissible residential use | HOA: Tarr’s operation breaches 4.1 by being a for‑profit duplex | Breached issues unresolved; need trial on breach claim |
| handicapped status of residents | Tarr: residents are handicapped under FHA/Texas FHA/ADA/ Rehab Act | HOA: no evidence residents are handicapped | Genuine issue of material fact exists regarding disability definitions under FHA/State acts |
| injunctive relief and attorney’s fees | Tarr: injunction void; fees improper if no enforceable relief | HOA: seeks fees as prevailing party | Injunction void; fee award reversed/remanded; Tarr entitled to relief consistent with final judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Edmonds v. Washington State Bldg. Code Council, 18 F.3d 802 (9th Cir. 1994) (broad FHA protections; group homes treated as protected uses)
- Deep East Texas Regional Mental Health & Mental Retardation Servs. v. Kinnear, 877 S.W.2d 550 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1994) (restrictive covenants cannot discriminate based on handicap; group homes protected)
- Rhodes v. Palmetto Pathway Homes, Inc., 400 S.E.2d 484 (S.C. 1991) (group homes generally constitute residential/single-family use)
- Gillebaard v. Bayview Acres Ass’n, 263 S.W.3d 342 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007) (burden on enforcing party to prove restrictions valid/enforceable)
- City of Pasadena v. Gennedy, 125 S.W.3d 687 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003) (validity/enforceability of deed restrictions; implied protections)