Lockhill Ventures, LLC v. Ard Mor, Inc., Texas Ardmor Properties, LP, and Texas Ardmore Management, LLC
04-14-00796-CV
| Tex. App. | Mar 6, 2015Background
- Ard Mor, Inc.; Texas ArdMor Properties, LP; and Texas ArdMor Management, LLC sued Lockhill Ventures, LLC seeking injunctive relief enforcing restrictive covenants on adjacent Shavano Park properties.
- Lockhill announced intent to develop a Shell gas station on property restricted by covenants prohibiting storage of explosive material and use incompatible with adjoining residential areas.
- The trial court granted a temporary injunction preserving status quo to prevent development pending merits trial.
- Lockhill challenged the injunction, arguing insufficient evidence and errors in standing, evidentiary admission, and interpretation of “explosive material.”
- The appellate court upheld the injunction and Ard Mor’s standing, affirming the trial court’s order and rejecting Lockhill’s challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion granting a temporary injunction | Lockhill argues no probable right or injury supports injunction | Ard Mor contends status quo preservation properly protects covenants | No abuse; injunction affirmed |
| Whether Ard Mor had standing to enforce covenants | Ard Mor lacks standing to enforce covenants | Standing sufficiently shown by neighboring property ownership and covenants | Ard Mor has standing; standing proof adequate to support injunction |
| Whether gasoline/gasohol vapors are explosive and support injunction | Gasoline vapors not explosively dangerous under proposed use | Evidence shows gasohol vapors are explosive; supports injunction | Gasoline/gasohol vapors are explosive under use; evidence supports injunctive relief |
| Whether the court properly relied on public records and judicial notice | Documents not formally admitted; improper notice | Public records properly noticed; evidence supports standing | Court properly took judicial notice; sufficient record supports standing |
| Whether the injunction constitutes a prior restraint on speech | Injunction is an unconstitutional prior restraint | Covenants enforce contractual restrictions, not suppress speech | Not a prior restraint; covenant enforcement rationale valid |
Key Cases Cited
- Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198 (Tex. 2002) (reviewing court may not reach merits in interlocutory appeal from temporary injunction)
- Transport Co. of Texas v. Robertson Transports, Inc., 261 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. 1953) (probable right and probable injury standard for temporary injunctions)
- Tel. Equip. Network, Inc. v. TA/Westchase Place, Ltd., 80 S.W.3d 601 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002) (deference to trial court; no reversal absent arbitrary decision)
- Amalgamated Acme Affiliates, Inc. v. Minton, 33 S.W.3d 387 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000) (evidence review at injunction stage)
- Matuszak v. Houston Oilers, Inc., 515 S.W.2d 725 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1974) (conflicting evidence no abuse of discretion at injunction stage)
- Nesmith v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., 82 S.W.2d 721 (Tex. Civ. App.—Austin 1935) (noting explosive properties as generally known)