Tanglewood Homes Association, Inc. v. Stewart A. Feldman, Marla B. Feldman, and Miichael T. Kelly, Trustee
2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 4655
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Tanglewood Section 8 deed restrictions govern Tilbury I/II expansions and enforce single-family limits.
- Feldmans sought to expand Tilbury I by annexing part of Tilbury II and building anew, potentially creating two residences on a reconfigured lot.
- The Association rejected the plans as violating Section 3 and 4 of the Deed Restrictions; the Trustee intervened.
- Tilbury II was exchanged with Tilbury I via an unrecorded cross-special warranty deed; amended plat later approved by City of Houston, but not file-recorded.
- Phase One resolved liability (and damages) against the Association with “and/or” questions; Phase Two addressed Trustee damages; a final amended judgment awarded damages and attorneys’ fees.
- The Court ultimately held (a) liability findings and damage awards were ambiguously posed and cannot support judgments for damages or fees; (b) Declaratory Judgments Act awards of fees were improper as duplicative of other claims; (c) declaratory relief itself was proper in scope; (d) cross-appeal fees under Property Code §5.006 and §38.001 and civil damages under §202.004(c) were not recoverable; (e) permanent injunction relief was not warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ambiguity of liability findings and damages | Feldmans/Trustee: and/or liability findings support damages | Association: and/or findings fail to identify liability per plaintiff | Ambiguity premis holds; damages reversal |
| Allowance of a trial amendment to add declaratory relief | Feldmans/Trustee: amendment proper to address fees via declaratory relief | Association: amendment prejudicial | Trial amendment not abused;Declaratory relief allowed |
| Scope and validity of declaratory relief under Deed Restrictions/Local Government Code | Feldmans/Trustee: relief clarifies rights; not contractually altering restrictions | Association: relief changes restrictions | Declaratory relief proper; does not violate Deed Restrictions or 212.016(a)(9)(B) |
| Attorneys’ fees under Declaratory Judgments Act improper | Feldmans/Trustee: fees recoverable under Declaratory Judgments Act | Association: fees duplicative of other remedies; Act not basis for fees | Fees under Declaratory Judgments Act improper; reversed fee award |
| Cross-appeal: availability of §5.006/§38.001 fees and §202.004(c) damages; injunction | Feldmans/Trustee: entitlement to fees/damages; injunction essential | Association: no entitlement under these provisions; no imminent injury | No fees under §5.006/§38.001; no civil damages under §202.004(c); permanent injunction denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Hinde v. Hinde, 701 S.W.2d 637 (Tex. 1985) (judgment must be definite and not contingent on post-judgment events)
- Olympia Marble & Granite v. Mayes, 17 S.W.3d 437 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000) (interlocutory judgments depend on ascertainable figures)
- Ramos v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 784 S.W.2d 667 (Tex. 1990) (liability findings must be established for each plaintiff)
- W & F Transp., Inc. v. Wilhelm, 208 S.W.3d 32 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006) (ambiguous jury findings cannot support judgment)
- J & C Drilling Co. v. Salaiz, 866 S.W.2d 632 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1993) (ambiguous ‘and/or’ findings cannot sustain liability)
- In re B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d 340 (Tex. 2003) (unpreserved error; single broad-form finding may be inadequate)
- MBM Fin. Corp. v. Woodlands Operating Co., 292 S.W.3d 660 (Tex. 2009) (Declaratory Judgment Act cannot fund otherwise impermissible fees)
- City of Carrollton v. RIHR, Inc., 308 S.W.3d 444 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010) (fees available only where Act supports relief; not duplicative)