Kevin Tarr v. Lantana Southwest Homeowners' Association, Inc.
03-14-00714-CV
| Tex. App. | May 19, 2015Background
- Lantana Southwest Homeowners' Association (HOA) sued Kevin Tarr for converting a single‑family lot (subject to recorded Declaration) into a duplex/group home and renting rooms to unrelated tenants, alleging breach of the Declaration's §4.1 residential‑use and income‑production restrictions.
- Tarr defended primarily by invoking the Federal and Texas Fair Housing Acts (and related statutes), asserting his tenants were disabled/handicapped (recovering addicts) and thus protected from enforcement of the use restrictions; he also asserted various affirmative defenses and counterclaims.
- Lantana moved for no‑evidence and traditional summary judgment on Tarr's affirmative defenses and counterclaims and later moved for summary judgment on its breach claim; multiple judges granted partial summary judgments against Tarr at different stages.
- The trial court granted no‑evidence summary judgment against Tarr's Fair Housing Act affirmative defenses for failure to produce admissible evidence that tenants were "handicapped" or "disabled."
- After those rulings, the court granted summary judgment for Lantana on the breach of the Declaration (Tarr admitted the deed restrictions and his rental use; evidence showed conversion and income receipts). An agreed final judgment fixed attorney fees ($88,000 plus $35,000 if an unsuccessful appeal) under Tex. Prop. Code §5.006.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lantana) | Defendant's Argument (Tarr) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment on breach of the Declaration was proper | Lantana: Deed is valid/applicable; Tarr admitted property is restricted and he converted it to multi‑tenant/income producing use; no viable defenses remained after no‑evidence rulings | Tarr: Fair Housing Acts protect group homes for recovering addicts and preclude enforcement; notice and other defenses | Court: Affirmed. Tarr failed to produce evidence that tenants were protected under the FHAs; breach established as a matter of law |
| Whether Tarr produced sufficient evidence to create fact issue on Fair Housing Act protections | Lantana: Tarr bore burden to prove tenants are "handicapped/disabled"; his affidavits were conclusory and insufficient under summary judgment standards | Tarr: Affidavits and later evidence show residents are recovering addicts and thus disabled/handicapped or regarded as such | Court: Tarr's evidence was conclusory; no‑evidence standard required more; summary judgment on FHA claims proper |
| Whether "regarded as disabled" theory defeats summary judgment | Lantana: Email/communications cited by Tarr do not show a belief that tenants have impairments that substantially limit major life activities; Burch and related precedent require more | Tarr: HOA communications show discrimination based on perception of addiction | Court: Held insufficient — mere labeling as alcoholic/addict without proof of substantial limiting impairment cannot carry "regarded as" claim |
| Whether attorney fees award was proper | Lantana: Prevailing party under Tex. Prop. Code §5.006; fees were also agreed in the final judgment | Tarr: Challenges amount/award | Court: Fees upheld — awarded by agreement in final judgment and, in any event, recoverable by prevailing covenant‑enforcement party under §5.006 |
Key Cases Cited
- Amedisys, Inc. v. Kingwood Home Healthcare, LLC, 437 S.W.3d 507 (Tex. 2014) (summary‑judgment burdens and standards)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (party moving for summary judgment may point to absence of evidence on an essential element)
- Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069 (5th Cir. 1994) (summary judgment evidentiary requirements in Fifth Circuit)
- Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (conclusory assertions insufficient to defeat summary judgment)
- Burch v. Coca‑Cola Co., 119 F.3d 305 (5th Cir. 1997) (alcoholism/disability inquiry; permanency and substantial limitation requirements)
- Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp. v. Auld, 34 S.W.3d 887 (Tex. 2000) (judicial admissions and effect on summary judgment)
- MMP, Ltd. v. Jones, 710 S.W.2d 59 (Tex. 1986) (movant must establish elements of claim as matter of law for traditional summary judgment)