363 S.W.3d 632
Tex. App.2011Background
- ROA appeals final judgment in a dispute over variances granting private water wells and buried propane tanks in La Ventana.
- CCRs vest control of the Architectural Committee (AC) in Driftwood, with Driftwood initially controlling board appointments.
- In 2006, AC granted 24 water-well variances and 23 propane-tank variances; variances were signed by Davis and Crider, with other AC members unaware.
- ROA challenged validity of variances as improper waivers; trial court ruled variances were valid except for those granted to Davis and Crider, and propane variances invalid.
- Individual Homeowners cross-appeal arguing fiduciary breaches by Davis and Crider and invalidity of propane variances; Interim-LV appeals attorney’s-fee award.
- Jury found variances valid under CCRs for water wells and invalid for propane tanks; court awarded limited attorney’s fees to plaintiffs and enjoined interference with water service efforts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of water well variances | ROA contends variances are unauthorized waivers, not variances. | Davis and Crider acted within CCRs granting variances; valid if written and majority-approved. | Variances are valid under CCRs as waivers limited to specific properties. |
| Fiduciary duties by AC members | Crider and Davis breached fiduciary duties to non-recipients. | No formal or informal fiduciary relationship existed; actions were arm’s-length. | No fiduciary relationship found; breach of fiduciary duty reversed. |
| Propane tank variances | Jury’s arbitrary-and-capricious finding supports invalidating propane variances. | AC had sole and absolute discretion; section 202.004(a) does not apply. | Propane variances are valid; ARBITRARY-CAPRICIOUS standard does not apply. |
| Attorney's fees | Fees reasonable and necessary, appropriately awarded against Interim-LV as successor to Driftwood. | Challenge to reasonableness and allocation of fees; Interim-LV not properly liable. | Fees upheld; remanded for recalculation of equitable amount on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (legal-sufficiency standard; standard for reviewing jury verdicts)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgway, 135 S.W.3d 598 (Tex. 2004) (more-than-a-scintilla metric for appellate review)
- Uptegraph v. Sandalwood Civic Club, 312 S.W.3d 918 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2010) (contract-interpretation of covenants; plain-language approach)
- Crim Truck & Tractor Co. v. Navistar Int’l Transp. Corp., 823 S.W.2d 591 (Tex. 1992) (informal fiduciary duty; relationship normally a question of fact)
- Meyer v. Cathey, 167 S.W.3d 327 (Tex. 2005) (formal fiduciary relationships; attorney-client/trustee)
- Thigpen v. Locke, 363 S.W.2d 247 (Tex. 1962) (informal fiduciary duty; subjective beliefs alone insufficient)
- In re Pirelli Tire, L.L.C., 247 S.W.3d 670 (Tex. 2007) (absolute discretion concept in reviewal context)
- Lucas v. United States, 757 S.W.2d 687 (Tex. 1988) (discretionary decisions and judicial re-evaluation limits)
- Williams v. State, 592 S.W.2d 931 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (example of absolute discretion context)