### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 9 -00 146 -CV

We stCa m pus R am se y P r ope r ti e s, Lt d. , A ppe lla nt // En c ina l C ondo m inium Owne r s’ As so c iat ion , I nc ., Cr os s- App e lla nt

v. Encin al Condominium Owners’ Association, Inc. , Appellee // West Cam pus Ram sey P ropert ies, Ltd., Cross-Appellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 98TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- GN-08- 0007 41 , HO NORAB LE ORLI NDA NARAN JO , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
Wes t Ca mpu s Ra mse y Pr op e rt ie s, Ltd. (“ Wes t C amp us Ra ms ey ”) br ou ght s ui t against E n ci n al C o n d o m i n i u m Ow n er s ’ A s s o ci at i o n , I n c. (t h e “ As s o ci at i o n ”) t o re m o v e a wal l d i v i d i n g a second- floor ter

rac e adjoining two condominium units
. The district cour t gr anted pa

rtial summary judgme nt in favor of W es t C ampus Ramsey and orde red the Association to remove the wall but denied West Campus Ramsey ’s claim for attorney ’s fees. West Campus Ramsey appea ls the denial of its claim for attorney ’s fe es. The A ssociation cross a ppeals, c halleng ing the partial summary judgme nt in favor of

West Campus Ramsey and the order to re move the wa ll. For the r easons that follow, we a ffirm the district c ourt’s judg ment.2 BACK GR OUND Prior to May

2007, West Campus R amsey owned two units , 211 and 212, at the Encinal Condominiums. The units were use d as a sing le re sidence . They share a common wa ll and
a sec ond-floor te rra ce (the “terra ce” ) wit h doorwa y s from both uni ts leading to the terra ce. O n the sid e of the te rr a c e c los e st t o un it 21 2, the re is a be dr oo m wi nd ow to u nit 21 2 a nd sta ir s le a din g to the roof of

unit 212. The roof is the pr operty of unit 212. I n May 2007, West Campus R amsey sold unit 212 t o Cristina Roger s. A few months afte r the sale , Roge rs bec ame c oncer ned with her

own safe ty and privac y

beca use of the a cce ss from
u n it 211 to the terrac e and the stairs on the terr ace leadingto her unit’s roof . After she obser

ved pe op le acces si ng the t e rr a c e and the sta ir s to he r r oo f f

ro m un it 2 11 , s he a sk e d th e As so c ia tio n to construct a

dividing wa ll to sepa

rate her side of the terra ce from unit 211’ s side. The Assoc iation complied with her r equest a nd constructe d a wa ll dividi ng the terr ace . West Campus R am s ey

t h er ea ft er p ro t es ted and de manded that the A ssociation remove the wa ll. Wes t Campu s Ramsey ult imate ly

fi le d th is s uit

in M arc h 2 00 8, se e kin g sp e c if ic pe rf orman c e re qu ir ingthe As so c ia tio n to re mov e the wa ll a nd a tto rn e y ’s fe e s and

c os ts. Wes t Campus Ramsey

cont en d ed t h at (i) the te rra ce w as a limited common eleme nt for the be nefit of
un its 21 1 a

nd 2 12 a c c or din g to t

he De c lara

tio n o f C on do min ium

Re g ime fo r E nc ina l Co nd omi niums (the “ De clar ation”), ( ii) West C ampus Ramsey had not conse nted to the wall’s c onstruction, and (i ii) the As so c ia tio n h a d n o a uth or ity un de r t he De c lara

tio n to a uth or ize the ow ne r o f u

nit 21 2 to divide a common ele ment share d with the owner of unit 211. Alternatively , West Campus R amsey
c on te nd e d th a t th e As so c ia tio n’ s c on str uc tio n o f t

he wa ll v iol a te d s e c tio n 8 1. 10 4( e ) o f t he pr op e rt

yArticle 1.11 of the Dec laration defines limited common are a: 1 “L imited Com mon Are a” shall mean those portions of t he C ommon Are as re serve d fo r t he e xclu siv e us e of on e or mor e Ow ne rs to the e xclu sio n o f o the r s uc h O wn e rs , such L imited Com mon Area s being mo re particular ly desig nated a s such on Exhi bit s “ B ” and

“ C” he re to a

nd be ingthe Te rr a c e s, Roo f De c ks and Park ingAr e a s. Terr ace s are desig nated by the prefix “T” followed by the num ber of the Residence to which they

are assig ned. . . . Ex hibit B desig nates the te rra ce “ T211& 212.” 3 code be cause the Association did not obtain its consent. See Tex. P rop. Code Ann. § 81.104( e) (West 2007). West Campus R amsey also soug ht attorney ’s fe es pursua nt to section 5.006 of the proper ty code. Se e id . § 5.006 (West 2004). I n Aug ust 2008, W est Campus Ramsey soug ht a pa rtial summary judgme nt contendingthat it was entitled to specific perf ormanc e—that the Assoc iation be orde red to re move the wall—as a

matter of la

w base d on article s 7.7 and 9.6 of the D ecla ration and se ction 81.104(e) of the prope rty

code. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c ); Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 81.104(e). A rticle 7.7 provides the phy sical boundarie s of the residenc es, the common are as, and the limited common are as as beingthose “set out on Exhibi t ‘B.’ ” E x h i b i t B shows the te rra ce a s a limited common
ar ea assigne d to units 211 and 212. A rti c le 9
. 6 p r o v id e s th a t “ [n ]o tw it h s ta n d in g an y

o ther 1 provision here of, the prior approva l of at l east two-thirds ( 2/3) in interest of a ll Members of the Association (e x cluding Deve loper) sha ll be require d fo r . . . any amendment to this Dec laration (o the r t ha n an a me ndme nt fo r t

he so le purp os e of

a ssi g nin g a dd iti on a l Park ingAr e a s, a s se t f or th i n para g raph 7.8 a

bove) . . . .”Article 1.17 of t he Declar ation define s the “Project” t o mean “ the L and, the B uilding, the 2 Residence s, the L imited C ommon Area s and the Common Area s comprising the condominium reg ime here by

established.” 4 West Campus R amsey ’s evidenc e included a copy of the De clar ation, discovery respo n s e s , le tt e r s b e tw e e n th e p arti e s c o n c e r n in g th e d is p u te , an d an a f f id a v it f r o m M ic h e l I s s a , a limit ed par

tner of West Campus Ramsey . I ssa ave rre d that West Campus Ramsey did not consent to the construction of the wall dividing the te rra ce be tween u n i t s 2 1 1 and 212 and that the Association did not conduct a me mbership vote to cha ng e the b o undarie s of the limited common are a betwee n units 211 and 212.

The Association responde d. Ba sed upon ar ticles 3.1, 7.2, and 11.2 of the Dec laration and the Assoc iation’s by laws, the Association asse rted that its board of direc tors (the “ Boa

rd”) was authorized to make the de cision to c onstruct the wall dividing the terr ace and that the de cision was
rea sonable. Ar

ticle 3.1 g rants the Assoc iation the “powe r and oblig ation t o p ro v ide for the
ma int e na nc e , r e pa ir , r e pla c e me nt, ad minist ratio n, ins ur anc e , a

nd op e ratio n o f t

he Pr oje c t in
acc ordanc e with the ter

ms hereof

.” Article 7.2 r estricts an ow ner f rom permitting a

residenc e, 2
common are a, or limit ed common are a from being used for any purpose “ which would constitute a public or private nuisance , which deter mination may be made by the Boa rd in its sole discretion” or “which w ould interfer e unrea sonably with the use and occupa ncy of the Project by

other Ow ners.” Article 11.2 a

uthorizes the Boa

rd to a mend the rules and re g ulations with respec t to the “day -to-day maintenanc e, oper ation, and enjoy ment of the Common Area s and the Project” and provides that the rules and r eg ulations are of “equa l dignity

with, and shall be enforce able in the s ame manner as, the5

pr ov isi on s o f t

his De c laratio n. ” Ar

tic le 11 .2 a lso pr ov ide s th a t e a c h o wn e r a g re e s to c omp ly wi th the rules a

nd regulations. The Assoc iation’s evidenc e included the affidavits of Michae l Murray , the pre sident of the Boa

rd, and Cristina Rog ers. Murra y aver red to the use of the limited common ar ea te rra ce, Roge rs’ c ommunications to the Boar d about her safe ty and priva cy conce rns, and the spe cific a rticles of the De clar ation authorizing the Boar d’s decision to construct the wall di viding the terra ce. Roge rs
aver red to he r purc hase of unit 212 and her reque st to the Boa rd. Roge rs attac hed and inc orporated to he r a ff ida vit the le tte r that sh e se nt to the B oa rd , the dis c los ur e state me nt f ro m th e se lle r o f u

nit 212, and picture s of the ter rac e, the dividing wall, and the sta irs. After a hea ring , the district court g rante d West Campus R amsey ’s motion for par tial
su mma ry jud g me nt. Th e re ma ini ng issue of a tto rn e y ’s fe e s w a s tr ie d to the dis tr ic t c ourt in November

2008. The district cour

t entere d a final judgme nt, incorporating the summar y judgme nt rul i ng and orde ring the Association to re move the wa ll within 45 day s of the orde r and a war ding attorney ’s fe es and costs to West Campus Ramsey . The Assoc iation filed a motion for ne w trial on the issue of attorney ’s fe es. The district c ourt g rante d the motion and enter ed an a mended judg ment without the awar d of attorne y ’s fe es.

The district cour

t also entere d finding s of fa ct and c o n cl usions of law conc erning West Campus Ramsey ’s claim for attorney ’s fees. The dist rict court made the f ollowing c onclusions of law c on c e rn ingWes t Campu s Ramse y ’s c la im f or a tto rn e y ’s fe e s:
2. I n o rd e r t o r e c ov e r atto rn e y ’s fe e s, a pa rt y must prove it i s a

uth or ize d to rec over those f

ees by contra ct or statute.6

3. [W est Campus Ramsey ] soug ht the awa rd of a ttorney ’s fe es base d on Texas Pr op e rt y Cod e Se c . 5. 00 6, wh ic h a uth or ize d the awa

rd of a tto rn e y ’s fe e s in a su it o n a br e a c h o f a

re str ic tiv e c ov e na

nt. 4. Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary J udg ment, g rante d by District Court J u d g e St e p h e n Y e le n o s ky o n O c to b e r 1 , 2 0 0 8 , w a s b a s e d o n th e Texas P r o p e rt y C o d e S e c t i o n8 1
. 1 0 4 ( e ) c l a i m o n l y. 5. A suit based o n Texas Property Code Section 81.104(e) is not a suit on a br e a c h o f a

re str ic tiv e c ov e na

nt. 6. Texas P roper

ty Code Section 81.104(e) does not authorize the re cover y of a tto rn e y ’s fe e s. 7. Th e re is n o c on tr a c t a uth or izin g the awa

rd of a tto rn e y ’s fe e s. 8. [W est Campus Ramsey ] i s not entitled to recove r a t t o rney ’s fe es fr om [ the A s s o c iati o n ]. The pa rties’ a ppeals followe d.
AN AL YSI S I n two issues, West Campus Ramsey contends that it wa s entitled to attorney ’s fe es beca use its action was to e nforc e the De clar ation, a re strictive cove nant, and the summary judgme nt evidenc e esta

blished that the Association bre ache d the Dec laration. The Association counter s that the De c laratio n d id n ot e nti tle Wes t Campu s Ramse y to r e mov e the wa ll, the dis tr ic t cou rt e rr e d in g ra nti n g th e p artial summary

judgme nt in favor of

West Campus R amsey , and West Campus Ramsey was not entitled to attorney ’s fe es.7

Stan dard of Revie w

We re vie w the tr ia l c ourt ’s de c isi on to g ra nt s umm ary

jud g me nt de novo
. Valence Op e ra tin g Co . v . D or

se tt , 164 S.W .3d 656, 661 (Tex. 2005)
. To preva il on a s u m m ar y j udg ment mot ion , th e mov ant m

us t de mon str a te that th e re are no g e nu ine iss ue s of ma te ri a l fa c t and that it is
e nti tle d to jud g me nt a s a

ma tte r o f l aw. Te x. R. C iv. P. 166 a(c ); City of Houston v. Clear Creek Ba sin Au th ., 589 S.W .2d 671, 678 (Tex. 1979) (movant must c onclusively prove al l “e s sential
e le me nts of

his c a us e of a c tio n o r d e fe ns e a s a

ma tte r o f l aw” ). I n d e c iding whe th er th ere is a disputed materia l f

act issue prec luding summary judgme nt, we must take e vidence favor able to the nonmovant as t rue, indulge every rea sonable inferenc e in favor of t he nonmovant, and re solve any doubts in the nonm ovant’s fa vor. Do rse tt , 1 64 S.W. 3d a t 66 1; Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgm t. Co. , 69 0 S .W .2 d 5 46 , 5 48 -4 9 ( Te x. 19 85 ). Whe re the tr ia l c ourt do e s n ot s pe c if

y the g ro un ds fo r i ts summary judgme nt, we must aff

irm the sum m ar y judgme nt if any of the theor ies prese nted to the trial court a

nd preserved f

or appe llate re view ar e mer itorious. Se e Pr ov ide nt L ife& Ac c ide nt I ns . Co. v . Kn ott , 128 S.W .3d 211, 216 (Tex. 2003).

This Court revie ws a trial court’s finding s of fac t f or leg al and fac tual sufficie ncy of the evidence by

the same standa

rds applied to a jur

y verdic t. See Ortiz v . Jones , 917 S.W .2d 770, 77 2 ( Te x. 19 96 ); An de rso n v . Ci ty of S e v e n P oin ts , 8 06 S.W. 2d

79 1, 79 4 ( Te x. 19 91 ); se e als o Ci ty of Keller v. W

ilson , 168 S.W .3d 802, 810 (Tex. 2005) (leg al suffic iency standard of

revie w); Cai n v . B ain , 709 S.W .2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986) (factua l sufficie ncy standard of

revie w). We re view the district court’s c onclusions of law de novo
. See B MC Software B el

g i u m, N .V. v. Marc hand , 83 S.W .3d 789, 794 (Tex. 2002).I n its first issue, the Association contends that the Dec laration did not entit le West Campus 3 Ramsey to remove the wall. B eca use we aff

irm the summary

judgme nt ruling ba sed upon sec tion 81.104(e) of the proper

ty code, we do not addr ess the Association’s first issue. Se e Pr ov ide nt L ife & Ac c ide nt I

ns . Co . v . Kn ott , 128 S.W .3d 211, 216 (Tex. 2003). 8 We also review

matters of statutory

const ru ct ion de novo
. City of S an An ton io v. City of Boerne , 1 11 S.W. 3d 22, 25 (Tex
. 20 03 ). I n c on str uin g statut e s, our p ri mary g oa l is to deter mine and g iv e eff

ect to the leg islature’s intent. Id . We beg in with the plain lang uag e of the
s tatute a t i s s u e an d

a p p ly it s c o mm o nme aning
. Id . Where the statutory text is unambiguous, we adopt a c onstruction supported by the statute’s plain langua g e, unless that construction would lead to an absurd r esult. Fleming Foods of Tex., Inc . v. Ry lander , 6 S.W .3d 278, 284 (Tex. 1999).
Summ ar y Jud gment Ruli ng I n its second issue, the Association contends that the di strict court e rre d in gr anting partial summary judgme nt in favor of West Campus Ramsey . Although the parties dispute whe ther W est Campus Ramsey

asser ted an a lternative g round in its moti on based upon the Association’s alleg ed bre ach of the Dec laration, they ag ree that West Campus R amsey soug ht and the district cour t g rante d partia l s ummary judgme nt pursuant to section 81.104(e ) of the pr operty code. See

3 Tex. P rop. Code Ann. § 81.104( e).

Se ct i o n 81.104 addre sses apa rtment owner ship in a condominium reg ime. Se e id . § 81 .1 04 . Su

bs e c tio n ( e ) p ro vid e s, a s to a lim ite d c omm on

e le me nt, that con se nt f

ro m c e rt a in
ow ne rs is r e qu ir e d b e fo re a c on do min ium

a sso c ia tio n ma

y a lte r o r d e str oy

the e le me nt:9

A co n d o m inium association may not alter or de stroy

an apa rtment or a limited common element without the conse nt of al l o wner s aff ecte d and the f

irst lien mor tg a g e e s o f a ll a ff

e c te d o wn e rs . Se e id
. Th e As so c ia tio n d oe s n ot d isp ute that th e De c laratio n d e sig nate s th e te rr a c e a s a limit ed common ele ment assig ned to units 211 and 212 or that West Campu s R am s ey did not consent to the wa ll’s construction. The Association challeng es t he applicability of section 81.104(e) based upon West Campus Ramsey ’s sale of un i t 212. By

convey ing unit 212, the Assoc iation contends that West Campus Ramsey also convey ed the portion of the terra ce appurte nant to unit 212 and, ther efor e, that it was not re quired to obta in West Campus Ramsey ’s conse nt before constructing the wall. I t contends the sale divi ded the parties’ interests i n the t err ace beca use, for example, the only purpose of

the stairs located on unit 212’s portion of the ter rac e is ac cess to u n i t 2 1 2 ’s roof, which is owned ex clusively by unit 212. The Association relies upon the la ng uag e in ar

ticle 2.1 of the De c laratio n th a t “ [e]a c h Owner shal l be e nti tle d to e xclu siv e ow ne rs hip and po sse ssi on

of his Residence and the L imited Com mon Area s appurtena nt thereto” and the languag e in article 2.2 of the Dec laration that “[e] ach Re sidence and the inter est in the Common Are as and L imited Com mon Are as appur

tenant ther eto shall be insepa rable and may

be conve y ed or e ncumber ed only as a unit.” Th e As so c ia tio n urg e s th a t art ic le s 2 .1 and 2. 2 of the De c laratio n a

re inc omp a tib le wi th We st Ca mp u s R a m s e y ’ s c l a i m t o o w n an u n d i v i d e d i n t e r e s t i n t h e t e r r a c e an d t h a t t h e w a l l s e r ve s to enfor ce both owne rs’ entitlement to e x clusive possession of the limited common area appurte nant to their respe ctive units.10 Re str ic tio ns in c on do min ium de c laratio ns and su c h oth e r ins tr ume nts are su

bje c t to the same g ener al rules of

contra ct construc tion. See P ilarcik v. Emm ons , 9 6 6 S. W. 2 d 4 7 4 , 4 7 8 ( T e x. 19 98 ); Aghili v . Banks , 63 S.W .3d 812, 816 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 2001, pet. denied)
. I n construing a wr itten instrument, the primary conce rn of the cour

t is to ascerta in the true intentions of the pa rties as e x presse d in the instrument. Coker v. Cok er , 650 S.W .2d 391, 393 (T ex . 1 9 8 3 ). To ac hieve this objective, courts consider the entire writing in an ef fort to g ive ef

fec t to all the provisions so that none will be rende red me aning less. Id
.

Viewingthe ar

ticles of the De clar ation as a whole, the Association’s interpretation that th e te rr a c e a s a

lim ite d c omm on

are a wa s d ivi de d w he n unit 21 2 w a s so ld pu rsu ant t o article s 2.1 and 2.2 conflicts with the desig nation of the ter rac e “T 211&212.” See B anks , 63 S.W .3d at 816. The D ecla

ration desig nates the te rra ce a s a limited common area assig ned to units 211 and 212 and both u n it s h a v e d o o r w ay s le a d in g to th e te r

r a c e . F u rth e r , g iv e nth e p la in la n g u a g e of section 81.104(e ) that the c onsent of “all owner s aff ecte d” is require d, even if the sale of

unit 212 divided the parties’ interests in the limit ed common are a of the terr ace , the wall alter ed the ter rac e and af fec ted West Campus Ramsey , as the owne r o f u n i t 2 1 1
. See Tex. P rop. Code Ann. § 8 1. 10 4( e ); City

of S an An ton io , 111 S.W .3d at 25. Th e As so c ia tio n a lso re lie s u po n s e c tio n 8 2. 05 2 o f the pr op e rt y c od e that de fi ne s unit boundarie s to support its arg ument that the sale of unit 212 divided the terra ce as a li mited common
are a. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 82.052 (West 2007) . Subsection (4) of se ction 82.052 provides that, among other thing s, “balc onies” a nd “exterior doors a

nd windows or o t her f

ix tures desig ned to s e rv e a

sin g le un it, bu t lo c a te d o uts ide the un it’ s b ound ari e s, are lim ite d c omm on e le me nts11

all ocate d exclusively

to that unit.” Se e id
. § 8 2
. 0 5 2 ( 4 )
. B u t s e c ti o n 8 2
. 0 5 2 e xp r e s s ly does not
overr ide a de signation in a decla ra t i o n and subsection (4) is limited to improvements or fixt ures “desig ned to serve a sing le unit.” See id. § 82.052 (“Except as otherwise provided by the dec laration or plat: . . .”). T he ter

rac e wa s not designe d to serve only unit 212. Th e De c laratio n d e sig nate s th e te rr a c e a s a lim ited c omm on e le me nt a ssi g ne d to
un its 21 1 a

nd 21 2. Th e e vid e nc e a lso c on c lus ive ly sh ow s tha t the As so c ia tio n co ns tr uc te d the wa ll, and Michel I ssa’s aver

ment that West Campus Ramsey did not consent to th e w al l ’s construction was undisputed. B ased upon the pl ain lang uag e of se ction 81.104(e) , the wall dividing the terra ce

“ a lte r[e d] . . . a lim ite d c omm on e le me nt, ” re qu ir ing the As so c ia tio n to ob ta in t he c on se nt o f We st Campus Ramsey , an “a ffe cted” owner . See id. § 8 1. 10 4( e ); City of S an An ton io , 111 S.W .3d at 25. We co n c lu d e that West Campus R amsey established its entitlement to summary judgme nt as a matter of law pursuant to se ction 81.104(e) of the prope rty code. See Te x. R. C iv. P. 1 66 a (c ). We o ve rr ule the Association’s se cond issue.
Attorn ey’ s Fees I n two issues, West C ampus Ramsey challeng es the district cour t’s conclusions of law 4 throug h 8 that the summary judgme nt ruling w as base d only on section 81.104(e ) of the proper ty code a nd a cor respondingfinding of fa ct, number 8 , i n wh i ch the district cour t simil arly found:
The basis f

o r Pl a in ti f f ’ s M o ti o nf

o r Pa rti a l S umm ar

y Ju d g me n t w a s th a t T e xas Property Code Section 81.104(e) did not allow t he construction of the wa ll dividi ng the upstairs terr ace share d by units 211 and 212 beca

use the terra ce i s a limitedSe c tio n 5 .0 06 (a ) p ro vid e s: 4 I n an ac tion based on bre ach of a re strictive covena

nt pe rtaining to r eal pr operty , the court shall allow to a pr evailing party who asser

ted the ac tion reasona

ble attorne y ’s fe e s in a dd iti on to t he pa rt y ’s c os ts a

nd c la im. See Te x. Pr op . Co de Ann. § 5 .0 06 (a ) ( Wes t 20 04 ). “ ‘R e str ic tiv e c ov e na nt’ ” me ans any

c ov e na nt, condition, or restric tion contained in a de dicatory instrument, wh et h er ma ndatory , prohibitive, permissive, or a dminist rative.” Id . § 202.001(4) ( West 2007). 12 common are a and the re w as no conse nt of all owner s aff ecte d or first lien mortg ag ees of owne rs af

fec ted by the cha ng e. West Campus R amsey

contends that it is entitled to attorney ’s fe es pursua nt to se ction 5.006 of the proper ty code be cause its action

a g a in s t t he Association was to enfor ce the Dec laration—a restric tive
covena nt—and i t s o u g ht alternatively in its m otion for summary judgme nt, and the summary judgme nt evidence established, that the Association brea ched the Dec laration by constructingthe wall. See Tex. P rop. Code Ann. § 5.006. West Campus R amsey urg es that the e vidence was 4 conclusive that the Association bre ache d the Dec laration be cause the owner of unit 211 had the rig ht to use the terra ce as a limit ed common element under article 7.7 and the Assoc iation did not follow the method of amendment under article 9.6—a vote by

the member ship—before dividing the ter rac e. “A motion for summary

judgme nt must i tself expressly prese nt the g rounds upon which it is made, and must stand or f all on these g rounds alone.” Scienc e Spec trum, Inc. v . Martinez , 9 4 1 S
. W
. 2 d 9 1 0 , 9 1 2 (T ex . 1 9 9 7 ) ( ci t i n g Mc Con ne ll v . S ou ths ideIn de

p. Sc h. Di st ., 858 S.W .2d 337, 34 1 ( Te x. 19 93 )) ; see also Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c ). To dete rmine the g rounds expressly prese nted,
we may not r ely

on briefs or

summary judgme nt evidence
. Scienc e Spec trum , 941 S.W .2d at 912; Mc Con ne ll , 8 5 8 S.W .2d at 341. As the pa rty seekingto rec over upon a claim, West Campus13

Ramsey then was r equire d to “expressly set out” the g rounds in its mot ion that entitled it to s ummary judgme nt as a matter

of law. See Tex. R. C iv. P. 166a(c). I n its mot ion, West C ampus Ramsey states t he “essential facts” to be: (i) it i s “the
owner of unit 211 of the Enc inal Condomini ums”, (ii) the Association “authorized and pa id for the
c on str uc tio n of the wa ll d ivi din g the up sta ir s te rr a c e sh are d b y un its 21 1 a

nd 21 2, ” (i ii) Wes t Campus Ramsey “did not c onsent to the construction of the wall dividing the upsta irs terra ce sha red by units 211 and 212,” and (iv) acc ording to the Dec laration, “the share d terra ce is a limit ed common
are a for the bene fit of units 211 and 212.” Wes t Campu s Ramse y ’s e nti re “ Ar g ume nt a nd Autho ri tie s” is a s f

oll ow s:
4.1 Texas Property

Code Section 81.104(e) provides: “( e) Acon dominium association may

not alter or de stroy

an apa rtment or a limi t ed common element without the conse nt of all owner s aff ecte d and the f

irst lien mortg ag ees of

all aff ecte d owner s.” 4.2 The Dec lara

tions provide at Article 7.7, Bounda ries of Reside nces, that the limit ed common ele ments are shown on Exhi bit “B” of the De clar ation. 4.3 The De clar ation provides at Ar ticle 9.6 that an amendment to the Dec laration re qu ir e s th e vo te of

tw o- thi rd s o f t

he int e re sts of

a ll o f t he Me mbe rs . Gi ve n We st Cam

pu s Rams e y ’s state me nts of the “ e sse nti a l f a c ts” and its argume nt a

nd a uth or iti e s,
we a g ree with the di strict court’s finding that West Campus Ramsey ’s m otion was based only upon section 81.104(e ) of the pr operty code. West Campus Ramsey contends that the summary judgme nt evidence established the Association’s bre ach, pointing to the Dec laration a nd to Mic hel I ssa’s aver

ment that the Association

“ did no t c on du c t a me mbe rs hip vo te to c ha ng e the bo un da

ri e s of the lim ited com mo n el eme ntsWes t Campu s Ramse y ’s pe tit ion inc lud e d a

g e ne ra l pr ay e r f

or a tto rn e y ’s fe e s, bu t the on ly 5 statutory g round that it alleg ed to support i t s cl ai m fo r att orney ’s fe es wa s section 5.006 of the proper ty code. West Campus Ramsey also d i d n o t ra i se sec tion 82.161 of the proper ty code or chapte r 38 of the c ivil practice and re medies code with the district court at the subse quent hea ring on attorney ’s fe es. The A ssociation, howeve r, does not a rg ue waiver

as to West Campus R amsey ’s c la ims fo r atto rn e y ’s fe e s und e r s e c tio n 8 2. 16 1 o f t he pro pe rt

y c od e and c ha pte r 3 8 o f t

he c ivi l prac tice and r emedies c ode. See M itchell v. LaFlamme , 60 S.W .3d 123, 130 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 2000, no pet.) (although owners did not raise the issue with the trial court, they did not wa ive iss ue on

a pp e a l seek in g rec ov e ry

of a tto rn e y ’s fe e s und e r s e c tio n 5 .0 06 (a ) o f t he pr op e rt

y 14 betwee n units 211 a

nd 212 . . . . There fore , [t he Association] has not obtained a two-thirds vote of interests of members to authorize the construc tion of the para pet wall betwe en units 211 and 212.” B ut w e may no t con sid e r the su mma ry jud g me nt ev ide nc e to de te rm ine the sp e c if ic g ro un ds Wes t Campus Ramsey

prese nted in its mot ion. See Sc ienceSpectrum , 94 1 S .W .2d at 91 2; Mc Con ne ll , 858 S.W .2d at 341.

We conclu d e th a t We s t Ca mp u s Ra ms e y f a il e d to s e t f

o rth in it s mo ti o nthe specific g round that the B oard brea ched the Dec laration by authorizing the wall’s construction. See Tex. R. C iv. P. 166a(c). F urther, beca use West Campus Ramsey ’s claim for attorney ’s fe es under
se c tio n 5 .0 06 of

the pr op e rt

y c od e is d e pe nd e nt on a g ro un d that it did no t e xpre ssl y se t fo rt h in its motion—the Association’s brea ch of the Dec laration—we conc lude that the district court did not err i n d eny ing West Campus Ramsey ’s re quest for attorney ’s fe es under section 5.006. See Te x. R. Civ. P . 166a(c ); Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 5.006.

On a pp e a l, Wes t Campu s Ramse y a lso po int s to se c tio n 82 .1 61 (b ) of th e pr op e rt y
co de and c hapter

38 of the c ivil practice and re medies code as alter native statutory

g rounds for
awa rding attorney ’s fe es. See Te x. Pr op . Co de Ann. § 8 2. 16 1 ( Wes t 20 07 ); Te x. Civ . Pr a c . & Re m. Code Ann. § 38.001 (West 2008). Se ct ion 38.001(8) supports an a war d of attorne y ’s fe es if the 5code; owne rs’ plea dings soug ht attorney ’s fe es under the Uniform Dec laratory J udg ments Act and

the Uniform Condominium Act an d included a g ener al pra y er f or attorne y ’s fe es; court he ld that pleadingan incor

rec t or inapplicable statute did not prec lude awa rd of attorney ’s fe es and a war ded attorney ’s fe es pursua

nt to section 5.006(a) ). Although the Dec laration is subj ect to cha pter 81 of the proper

ty code beca

use the Encina l 6 Condomini um Reg ime was c reated and the D ecla ration re corde d befor e 1 9 9 4 , s e c tion 82.161 a pplies to the Dec laration. SeeTex. P rop. Code Ann. §§ 81.0011, 82.002( c) ( West 2007). 15 c la im i s f or “ an o ra l or

wr itt e n c on tr a c t.” Te x. Civ . Pr a c . & Re m. C od e Ann. § 3 8. 00 1( 8) . We st C am p u s R am s ey , h o we v er , d i d n o t al l ege b re ac h o f co n t ra ct aga i n s t t h e As s o ci at i o n i n i t s p l ea d i n gs
or see k summary

judgme nt based upon bre ach of contra ct to s u p p o rt an aw ard of attorney ’s fe es under se ction 38.001(8). See Tex. R. C iv. P. 166a(c). On this recor d, chapte r 38 does not support Wes t Campu s Ra

mse y ’s c la im f

or a tto rn e y ’s fe e s. We rea ch the same conc lusion as to s ec t i o n 8 2.161(b) of the prope rty

code. Se c tio n 8 2. 16 1 p ro vid e s: (a) I f a de clar ant or any other pe rson subject to this chapter violates this chapter , the de c laratio n, or

the bylaws , a

ny pe rs on or cl ass of pe rs on s a dv e rs e ly aff ecte d by the violation has a c laim for appr opriate r elief. (b) The pre vailing pa

rty in a n action to enforc e the de clar ations, by laws, or r ules is entitled to reasona

ble attorne y ’s fees an d costs of litigation from the n o np r e v a i l i n g p art y.
Tex. P rop. Code Ann. § 82.161. Subsection (a) provides a statutory basis for a trial court to gr ant 6 appropr iate re lief to a c ondominium owner in the eve nt it is aff ecte d by a violation of chapte r 82 of the property code or a condominium ’s dec laration or by laws. See id. § 82.161(a) . The re cover y of at t o rn ey ’s fe es i n s u

b s ec t i o n (b ), h o we v er , co v er s a na rr o we r cl as s o f cl ai m s . T h e p l a i n l an gu age of subsection (b) supports an awa rd of attorney ’s fee s for the violation of “dec larations, by laws, or16

rules” but, unlike subsec tion (a), it does not include the violation of a statute. See id. § 82.161(b); City of S an An ton io , 111 S.W .3d at 25. Given that we have concluded that W est Campus Ramsey ’s summary j u d gm en t m o tion was not based on br eac h of the De clar ation but based on bre ach of a statute, we c onclude that se ction 82.161(b) doe s not support W es t C am p us Ramsey ’s claim for attorney ’s fe es. We overr ule West Campus Ramsey ’s issues.

CO NC LU SION Be cause we c onclude that the district c ourt did not err i n g ranting summary judgme nt in favor of W es t Campus Ramsey and in deny

ing attorney ’s fe es, we aff irm the district
c ourt ’s jud g me nt.

__________________________________________ J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pury ear and Pember

ton Affir med Filed: De cembe r 30, 2009