Southampton Civic Club v. Patricio D. Sanchez
2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 2408
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- This is an appeal over the interpretation of deed restrictions in Southampton Place, Houston.
- The trial court granted partial summary judgment for Southampton Civic Club and denied Sanchez’s cross-motion; damages under Texas Property Code §202.004 were denied, but attorney’s fees were awarded to Southampton.
- The dispute concerns a three-foot-wide easement along the rear of Sanchez’s lot that backs an eight-foot alley used for garbage collection.
- Southampton asserts Sanchez violated the 1923 restrictions by erecting a fence and landscaping that intruded on the easement; Sanchez argues the easement permits only fixed utilities and not vehicular/road use.
- Southampton asserted standing to enforce the restrictions and sought civil damages under §202.004; the court held the easement allows a public-utility use (garbage collection) and awarded fees, while denying civil damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether garbage collection falls within the easement as a public-utility use | Southampton argues garbage collection is within the easement's scope | Sanchez contends the easement does not authorize vehicular use | Yes; garbage collection is a proper public-utility use of the easement |
| Whether Sanchez's fence and landscaping violate the deed restrictions | Sanchez’s improvements encroach on the three-foot easement reserved for public utilities | Improvements do not interfere with the expressly reserved uses | Yes; fence and landscaping violate the deed restrictions and require removal |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying §202.004 damages | Damages under §202.004 are appropriate for the violation | No, because there was no finding of intentional or knowing violation | No abuse; the court may decline damages if record does not show knowing, intentional disregard |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. Logan, 10 S.W.2d 428 (Tex.Civ.App.-Beaumont 1928) (utilitarian value of public utilities supports utility status of garbage collection)
- City of Wichita Falls v. Kemp Hotel Operating Co., 162 S.W.2d 150 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1942) (public utility concept applied to garbage collection)
- Coffey v. Roberts, 562 P.2d 160 (Okla.Civ.App.1977) (easement scope distinguished from utility placement restrictions)
- Marcus Cable Assocs., L.P. v. Krohn, 90 S.W.3d 697 (Tex.2002) (implied easement rights are limited to expressly granted purposes)
- Forbau v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 876 S.W.2d 132 (Tex.1994) (contract-interpretation principle: consider entire document)