Opinion No.
Background
- Attorney General analyzes seven Sunset Commission questions on validity/enforceability of restrictive covenants.
- Opinion limits analysis to whether covenants touch and concern the land, with other questions contingent on deed language/facts.
- Touch-and-concern requires: (1) affects promisor's legal relations to the land; (2) relates to an existing thing or binds assigns; (3) intended to run with the land; (4) notice to successor.
- Covenants that require payment of club fees to a for-profit entity face/benefit issues; case law on touch-and-concern is fact-dependent.
- Discussion cites Inwood and related Texas cases for whether a covenant runs with the land and whether personal covenants bind successors.
- Concludes: (1) covenants not touching the land do not run with the land; (2) valid contractual liens require explicit lien language; (3) notice is required for enforceability; (4) other issues depend on full instrument construction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do club membership fees touch and concern the land? | Request asserts fees may bind landowners regardless of benefit to burdened property. | Abbott analyzes touch/concern as fact-dependent; may not be satisfied if no land-related impact. | Touch-and-concern depends on facts; not determinable here. |
| Does a transfer fee to a for-profit club touch and concern the land? | Fees need not benefit burdened property to touch and concern land. | No clear authority; transfer-fee impact on owner's legal interest unclear. | Fact-specific; cannot definitively conclude. |
| Does Article XVI, §50 prevent foreclosure for non-land-touching personal covenants on homestead? | Personal covenants may foreclose on homesteads despite not touching land. | If covenant runs with the land, foreclosures may proceed; personal covenants bind only parties. | Foreclosure allowed if covenant runs with land; personal covenants do not bind successors. |
| Does Article XVI, §50 preclude foreclosure for non-liened, non-instrument-based fees on homestead? | Lateral contractual lien may be foreclosable if language creates a lien. | Creation of a contractual lien requires explicit language; otherwise not foreclosable. | Depends on instrument language; requires full contract construction. |
| Are Chapter 202 penalties for private club covenants applicable and enforceable? | Chapter 202 penalties apply to restrictive covenants in dedicatory instruments. | Application requires factual determination whether instrument qualifies as dedicatory; notice elements matter. | Depends on instrument construction and factual inquiry. |
Key Cases Cited
- Inwood N. Homeowners' Ass'n, Inc. v. Harris, 736 S.W.2d 632 (Tex. 1987) (covenant running with the land requirements; homestead lien context)
- Westland Oil Dev. Corp. v. Gulf Oil Corp., 637 S.W.2d 903 (Tex. 1982) (touches and concerns land concept defined)
- Homsey v. Univ. Gardens Racquet Club, 730 S.W.2d 763 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1987) (touches and concerns land under similar facts)
- 718 Assoc, Ltd. v. Sunwest N.O.P., Inc., 1 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. App.-Waco 1999) (personal covenants and binding on heirs/assigns)
- Sonny Arnold, Inc. v. Sentry Sav. Ass'n, 633 S.W.2d 811 (Tex. 1982) (Restatement influence on restraints on alienation)
- Samms v. Autumn Run Cmty. Improvement Ass'n, 23 S.W.3d 398 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2000) (enforceability/change of assessments under deed restrictions)
- Davis v. Huey, 620 S.W.2d 561 (Tex. 1981) (notice requirement for enforceability of covenants)
- Raman Chandler Props., L.C. v. Caldwell's Creek Homeowners Ass'n, 178 S.W.3d 384 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2005) (construction of deed to determine binding on parties)