Kevin Tarr v. Lantana Southwest Homeowners' Association, Inc., 03-14-00714-CV

Background

Appellant Kevin Tarr owns a house alleged by Lantana Southwest Homeowners’ Association (HOA) to violate a deed restriction by operating as a group/duplex residence (Westlake Recovery House, WRH).
The deed restriction defines permissible residential uses to include group homes except where excluded by federal or state law; the restriction expressly incorporates statutory protections (e.g., FHA) into its definition of permissible use.
The HOA moved for summary judgment and obtained rulings finding Tarr’s FHA-related affirmative defenses unsuccessful and granting relief (including an injunction and attorney’s fees); Tarr appeals.
Tarr argues the HOA bore the burden to prove WRH was not a protected group home and that evidence of residents’ admission criteria and testimony created genuine issues of material fact that residents are disabled under the FHA.
The HOA contends once a deed restriction violation is shown the burden shifts to the homeowner to prove statutory protection; it also asserts the house is a duplex and that breach alone supports fee recovery.
Tarr challenges the attorney’s-fees award because the injunction is void/unenforceable, he only stipulated to fee amount (not entitlement), and a bare finding of breach without meaningful relief does not make the HOA a "prevailing party."

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Lantana)	Defendant's Argument (Tarr)	Held (Trial-court issues challenged on appeal)
Burden to prove applicability of FHA to WRH	Once deed restriction violation shown, burden shifts to homeowner to prove FHA protection	Deed restriction incorporates statutory protections; HOA must prove WRH is not a protected use	Tarr argues trial court erred by treating first summary judgment as shifting burden when HOA had not shown breach; appellate reversal sought
Sufficiency of evidence of disability for WRH residents	Homeowner’s evidence insufficient; rely on employer-disability precedents	Admission criteria and resident testimony suffice to raise fact issue that residents are disabled under FHA	Tarr contends abundant authority supports that facility admission is prima facie evidence of disability; summary judgment improper
Characterization of property as "duplex" or commercial causing breach	Property is a duplex/ income-producing, thus violates covenant	Physical structure, front entries, utilities, city inspector findings, and FHA protection make duplex/commercial allegation immaterial	Tarr asserts duplex claim is a red herring and does not negate FHA-protected group-home status
Entitlement to attorney’s fees	Breach finding is sufficient to be a prevailing party entitled to fees; Tarr stipulated to fees	Tarr only stipulated to amount; injunction void so HOA obtained no meaningful relief and thus did not prevail	Tarr argues fees award should be vacated because HOA obtained no material relief and injunction unenforceable

Key Cases Cited

AHF Community Development LLC v. City of Dallas, 633 F. Supp. 2d 287 (N.D. Tex. 2009) (discusses burden in FHAA claim context)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standards)
Gillebaard v. Bayview Acres Ass’n, 263 S.W.3d 342 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007) (treats burden to prove permissible use under restrictions)
Burch v. Coca-Cola Co., 119 F.3d 305 (5th Cir. 1997) (employment-discrimination disability proof standards)
Reg’l Econ. Cmty. Action Program, Inc. v. City of Middletown, 294 F.3d 35 (2d Cir. 2002) (admission to facility as evidence of disability)
United States v. City of Chicago Heights, 161 F. Supp. 2d 819 (N.D. Ill. 2001) (group-home operations and FHA implications)
Intercontinental Group P’ship v. KB Home Lone Star L.P., 295 S.W.3d 650 (Tex. 2009) (definition of prevailing party and material alteration of legal relationship)
Wagner v. Fair Acres Geriatric Center, 49 F.3d 1002 (3d Cir. 1995) (facility-admission evidence and disability analysis)