Wesley Spears and Renee Jacobs v. Falcon Pointe Community Homeowners' Association
03-16-00825-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 17, 2017Background
- Homeowners (Spears and Jacobs) sued their HOA over fines for constructing a privacy screen; trial court initially granted summary judgment to HOA and awarded fees.
- This Court (Spears I) reversed only as to a declaratory-judgment claim because the first violation notice was not in the record, remanded attorney-fees issue, and otherwise affirmed.
- On remand the HOA filed a second traditional summary-judgment motion, attaching the first violation notice, an affidavit from the HOA manager stating all fines/fees had been paid, and records showing a $0 balance.
- Homeowners moved for a continuance to take further discovery (unverified, lacking required detail) and complained of new mootness theory; court denied the continuance.
- Homeowners filed a late response with an affidavit from Spears denying payment; the affidavit was conclusory and filed less than seven days before the hearing without leave.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for the HOA as the fines had been paid and the remaining controversy was therefore moot; awarded HOA attorney’s fees. Appeal followed and the court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused its discretion by denying motion for continuance | Spears argued continuance needed to conduct discovery on who paid fines and to respond to HOA’s new mootness theory | HOA argued motion was unverified, lacked the specificity required by Rule 252, and the needed evidence (first notice) was already attached to HOA’s motion | Denial affirmed — motion unverified, nonspecific, and court has docket control discretion |
| Whether summary judgment should have been denied because fines were not paid (mootness) | Spears argued he and Jacobs did not pay the fines; requested ability to implead a third party if one paid | HOA produced affidavit and account records showing fines/fees paid and $0 balance; argued payment rendered controversy moot and mootness is jurisdictional | Summary judgment affirmed — HOA established mootness; Spears’s affidavit was conclusory and untimely, thus not competent evidence |
| Whether mootness argument was waived | Spears suggested HOA waived mootness by raising it on remand | HOA maintained mootness can be raised at any time because it implicates subject-matter jurisdiction | Court held mootness cannot be waived and may be considered because it affects jurisdiction |
| Challenge to award of attorney’s fees | Homeowners briefly argued fees inappropriate because a third party allegedly paid fines | HOA supported fees with affidavits; court previously indicated fees were remanded for reconsideration | Court treated fee challenge as inadequately briefed (waived) and concluded trial court did not abuse discretion in awarding fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Joe v. Two Thirty-Nine Joint Venture, 145 S.W.3d 150 (Tex. 2004) (standard for reviewing trial court’s denial of continuance)
- Pickett v. Texas Mut. Ins. Co., 239 S.W.3d 826 (Tex. App.—Austin 2007) (requirement that party seeking further discovery before summary judgment must file verified motion or affidavit)
- Tenneco Inc. v. Enterprise Prods. Co., 925 S.W.2d 640 (Tex. 1996) (same rule on discovery/continuance in summary-judgment context)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Rincones, 520 S.W.3d 572 (Tex. 2017) (de novo review standard for traditional summary judgment)
- Heckman v. Williamson Cty., 369 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. 2012) (mootness doctrine and effect on subject-matter jurisdiction)