i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 8- 00 31 7- CV AL SAT IA N H EIG HTS H OM EOW NE RS A SSOC IA TIO N , Appellant
v . Omar RO DRIG UE Z , Appellee Fr om the 38th J udicial District Court, Medina County , Texas

Tr ia l Co ur

t N o. 07 -1 1- 18 71 3- CV Honora ble Mickey

R. Pennington, Judge Pre siding Opinion by : Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Sitt ing: Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice

Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Deliver ed and F iled: Fe bruar y 4, 2009 REVERSED AND REMANDED Alsatian Heights Homeowners Association appea ls a sum mary judgme nt g rante d in favor of Omar Rodriguez declar ing that Rodrigue z’s home is not in viol ation of the De clar ation of Restrictive Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for the Alsatian He ights Subdivision (the “De clar ation”). The Assoc iation contends that t he trial c ourt err ed in g ranting summary judgme nt in favor of Rodr i gu ez an d b y i ncluding finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law in its order. We r ever se the jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

and re mand the c a us e fo r f ur the r p ro c e e din g s.04

- 08

- 00 31 7- CV

- 2- B ACKG ROUND I n September of

2006, Rodrigue z purchased proper ty from his brother -in-law. Rodriguez’s b r o t h e r - i n - l aw h a d

s t art e d c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a r e s i d e n c e p r i o r t o R o dr i g u e z ’ s p u r c h a s e o f t h e p r o p e rt y. At t h e t i m e o f the purc hase, Rodriguez’s brother- in-law did not inform Rodrig uez that the Association had c ontacted him re g ardingthe construc tion. Although Rodrigue z rec eived a copy of the De c laratio n at th e tim e he purc ha se d th e pr op e rt y , h e did no t r e a d it
. On Octobe r 23, 2006, t he Association sent Rodrigue z a letter informing him that the Association had pr eviously contac ted his brother- in-law re questing a site plan and a time line f or the completion of the re sidence . The letter ref ers to par ag raphs 5.01 a

nd 5.04 of the De clar ation. Para g ra ph5. 01 state s: 5.01 Approva l of Plans and Specific ations: No build i n g, home, manufa cture d home, modular home, ma nufac tured house, fence, wa ll, or other structur e shall be commence d, place d, ere cted, or maintained upon the Prope rti es , nor shall any exterior addition to, or chang e or a lteration t h er ei n , be made , nor shall any land sc a pin g , e xcavatin g or

fi lli ngin o f a

ny L ot o r L ots be un de rt a ke n, un til the fu ll set of plans a

nd specific ations showing the nature , kind, shape, he ight, mate rials, and loc a ti o n o f th e s a me s h a ll h a v e b e e n s u b mi tt e d to an d a

p p r o v e d in w r it ing by

the Commi ttee. Para g ra ph5. 04 pr ov ide s in

pe rt ine nt p art : 5.04 Conventional Construction Homes: Homes of C onventional Construction shall be built on site using n ew m at er i als . ... A minimum doubl e ca rport and enclose d storag e shed sha ll be require d for eac h residenc e. ... No f lat roofs shall be permitted. The Assoc iation’s letter re quested that Rodriguez complete and return: (1) page s 1-3 of a Site Pl an Appr o v al R equired Data/Information Chec k-Off Sheet (the “ Approva l Request For m”); and ( 2) a Request for Waiver form stating the anticipated completion date. The letter c oncluded, “ Please send me the site plan a

nd Request for Waiver

information within the next 30 day s.”04

- 08

- 00 31 7- CV

- 3- On Marc h 1, 2007, Rodrigue z’s wife, Ve ronica Prida, responde d to the Association’s letter enclosing the completed A pproval Reque st Form and Re quest for Waive r. P ri d a informe d the Association that the dela

y in responding was due to her be ing dia g nosed with ca ncer . I n th e Re qu e st f

or Wai ve r, Rod

ri g ue z an d Prid a re qu e ste d a wa ive r o f f our m on ths to c ome into compliance with the Declaration. The Approval R equest Form s tated, “Final Appr oval re quires the following information. Conditional Approval may be obtained.” I n completing the Approva l Request For

m, Rodrigue z and Prida chec ked that a “ dimension ed s ite plan dra wing ” wa s being submitt ed showing four of five listed items, including: (1) the location of the house; (2) the location of the septic sy stem; ( 3) the location of the drivewa y ; a nd (4) the location of the fe ncing . Rather than chec king that the draw ing show ed the fifth item, the location of pla nned outbuildings, Rodrig uez and P ri d a w ro t e “ N/ A. ” S i m i l ar l y , b es i d e t h e p o rt i o no f t h e A p p ro v a l R eq u es tFo rm re qu es t i n g a descr iption of the outbuildi ng s, Rodrigue z a n d Prida wrote “N/A.” F inally , Rodrigue z and Prida
c omp le te d th e Ap pr ov a l Re qu e st F or m by de sc ri bin gthe fe nc e to be ins ta lle d a s a six f oo t f e nc e to be located in front of the proper ty with installation anticipated to be g in on Marc h 15, 2007, and end on Marc h 30, 2007. Attache d to the Approva l Request For m was a quotation for the septic sy stem that de sc ri be d th e sy ste m and c on ta ine d a

n e ng ine e r’ s d

ra wi ngof the se pti c sy ste m la

y ou t. On Marc h 12, 2007, Sandra Cre nshaw, the pr esident of the A ssociation, e-ma iled Prida and stated, “I am g ranting a conditional appr oval of y our submitted site plan.” C rensha w i nformed Prida that a six foot fenc e could not be er ecte d in front of the home . Crenshawfurther informed Prida that
o n l y o n e m o n t h w a s b e i n g g r an t e d t o c o mp l e t e t h e e x t e r i o r o f t h e h o u s e an d

t h e dr i v e w a y. T h e A s s o c iati o n ’ s w r itte n Co n d it io n a l S it e Pl anA p p r o v a l s tate d th a t t h e “ lo c a ti o nan d

s iz e of the home a

re a cce pted and a

pproved” and a w aiver

of the 50 ft. se tback was g rante d “bec ause the04

- 08

- 00 31 7- CV

- 4- house is permanently

attache d.” The reque st for a f our month waiver

was de nied but a wa iver of thirty day s from the date the conditional appr oval was r ece ived was g rante d “for the completion of the exteri o r of the home a nd the drivew ay .” The approva l of the six foot fenc e wa s denied, a nd information was pr ovided re g ardingthe ty pe of f ence that would be ac cep t ab l e. The letter conclude d: “We need the following information: 1) The loc ation of the drive way with respec t to the septic sy stem. The drive way h as n o t b ee n draw n on the site plan. 2) De scription of the fe ncing planned f or the fr ont of the house, if you are still planning to ere ct a f ence in the front.” On M ar ch 30, 2007, the Assoc iation sent Rodrigue z another letter inf orming him that flat roofs wer e prohibited and that he must chang e the r oof line to ac commodate a slope befor e a f

inal approva l would be g iven. The le tter stated that the Arc hitectura l Control C ommitt ee ( “Committ ee” ) and the B oard of

Direc tors (“B oard” ) expected a sloped roof to be completed by April 16, 2007. On May 15 , 2 00 7, Pr ida

se nt C re ns ha

w a le tte r s ta tin g , “ As a g re e d at our me e tin g , Ihave c he c ke d in to the possibilit y

of alter ing the app ea ra nce of the roof line at the house we are building at lot 129.” Prida’s letter stated that the house w as 98% complete and adding a new roof struc ture would pre sent two major problems. I n an eff ort to ple ase the Boa

rd, Prida’s letter proposed to install a c anopy on the house fa cade fac ing the street a nd enclose d a dra

wing of the propose d canopy
. On J une 2, 2007, the Assoc iation sent a letter r ejec ting the p ro p o s al. The le tter sug g ested two modifications to the roof that would be acc eptable t o t h e B oard. O n J une 20, 2007, Prida
re sp on de d b y

re qu e sti ng va

ri ou s ite ms of inf

or ma tio n an d a hea

ri ng be fo re the Com mit te e . O n July 11, 2007, Prida and Rodrig uez sent Crenshaw a follow-up letter

inqu i ri n g ab o u t the status of the information they

had pre viously

reque sted and infor

ming Cre nshaw that they int en d ed to attend a hear ing on July

26, 2007, reg ardingthe conc ern a bout the roof. On J uly

19, 2007, a letter

was sent04

- 08

- 00 31 7- CV

- 5- to Prida on behalf of t he Board providing some of t he requested information, stating that the Boa rd was not re quired to g ive ce rtain other inf ormation, and noting that the hea ring reg ardingthe roof w as schedule d for July

26, 2007. On Aug ust 20, 2007, Rodrigue z sent Crenshaw a le tter re questing a re sale c ertification and noting that no f

ormal written res p o n s e had been r ece ived re g ardingthe B oard’ s decision at the he ari ng . On Se pte mbe r 1 0, 20 07 , th e As so c ia tio n s e nt R od ri g ue z an d Pr ida

no tic e that th e pr op e rt

y
was in nonc ompliance with the Dec laration be cause the g rass and brush we re not be ing ma intained in a neat and orde rly

manner . On September

21, 2007, the Association sent Rodriguez and Prida
no tic e that th e pr op e rt

y wa s in no nc omp lia

nc e wi th the De c laratio n b e c a us e a min imum do ub le
car port and e nclosed stora g e shed w ere require d fo r ea ch residenc e. The letter stated that the Commi ttee’s a

pproval of the structure s must be obta ined in a dvance
. On October 26, 2007, a sec ond
n o t i c e r e g ar d i n g t h e c ar

p o rta n d s t o r a g e s h e d

w a s s e n t s t a t i n g R o dr i g u e z an d P r i d a h a d f o u rt e e nd a ys to comply or the B oard could hire outside contra ctors to c orre ct the noncompliance and cha rg e the
c os ts t o th e pr op e rt

y ow ne r. On

No ve mbe r 19 , 20 07 , a thi rd no tic e of no nc omp lia

nc e wa s se nt a lso thr e a te nin g to h ir e ou tsi de c on tr a c tor s to c or re c t th e de fi c ie nc ie s. On Nove mb e r

1 8 , 2 0 0 7 , Ro d

r ig u e z filed the underlying la wsuit seeking decla

ratory relief that he wa s in c omp lia

nc e wi th the De c lara

tio n ba se d on the As so c ia tio n’ s c on dit ion al app ro va l. Rodrigue z also asserted the de fense s of lache s, estoppel, and wa iver to the e nforc ement of the Dec laration
. R o d ri guez subsequently filed a motion for summar y judgme nt. The only

g round
a sse rt e d in

the mot ion a s a ba sis fo r s umm ary jud g me nt w a s Ro dr ig ue z’s c on te nti on that he wa s in compliance with the Dec laration ba sed on the Association’s approva l. Attache d to the motion was Rod ri g ue z’s a ff

ida vit in w hic h h e state d th a t th e ro of wa s c omp le te whe n th e Ap pr ov a l Re qu e st04

- 08

- 00 31 7- CV

- 6- For m was sent to the Association. Rodriguez also stated that no information was provide d reg arding the roof beca

use the Approva l Request For m did not ask for that information. Finally , Rodrigue z stated that the roof

is not flat but has a slope. The Assoc iation responded to Rodrigue z’s moti on and attac hed the tra nscripts of Rodrig uez and Prida’s de positions. P ictures of the roof a

re attached to Prida’ s deposition. After a hea ring , the trial cour

t gr anted summary

judgme nt i n fa vor of Rodrig uez. The Association appe als the trial cour t’s order
. S TA N D A R D O F R EVIEW We revie w a summ ary

judgme nt de novo. J

oe v . Two Thi rty

Nin e J oin t V e ntu re , 145 S.W .3d 150, 156 (Tex. 2004)
. We c onsider the evidenc e in the lig ht most favorable to the non-movant and indulge all rea sonable infe renc es and r esolve a ny doubts in the non-movant’s favor. Id
. a t 1 5 7
. We will affirm a

summary

judgme nt only

if the movant established the re a re no g enui n e i ssues of materia l fa ct an d the movant is entitled to judgment a s a matter of law on a g round expressly set forth in the motion. Id
. D I S CUS S I ON Be cause the only

g round asse rted by

Rodrigue z in hi s motion for summary judgme nt was that the re sidence was in compli an ce wi t h the Dec laration based on the Assoc iation’s conditional approva l, we do not consider the def enses of waiver , estoppel, or lac hes asse rt ed in Rodrigue z’s petition but not raised in his mot ion. Se e Ci ty of Ho us ton v . Cl e ar

Cre e k Ba sin Au tho rit

y , 589 S.W .2d 671, 675-77 (Te x . 1979) (holding g rounds for summary judgme nt must be ex pressly set out in moti on). Restrictive c ovenants a re subjec t to t he g ener al rules of contra ct construc tion. Pilarcik v. Em mons , 9 66 S.W. 2d 47 4, 47 8 ( Te x. 19 98 ); So nte rra Cap ita l Pa rtn e rs, Ltd . v . S on te rra04

- 08

- 00 31 7- CV

- 7- Property Owners Ass’n, I nc. , 216 S.W .3d 417, 420 (Tex. App.—San Anton i o 2 0 0 6 , p et. denied)
. Restrictive covenants ar e libera lly construed to e ffe ctuate the ir purposes a nd intent; however

any d o u b t s are resolved in f

avor of the fre e and unr estricted use of the pre mises. S o n te r ra Capital Partners, Ltd. , 216 S.W .3d at 420. Section 5.01 of the Dec laration r equire d Rodrigue z to submit a “full set of p l an s and specific ations showing the nature , kind, sha pe, heig ht, materials, and location” of the re sidence prior to be g inning construction in or der to se ek the Association’s approva l. Rodrigue z re lies heavily on Pilarcik v. Em mons , 9 66 S.W. 2d a t 48 0, in a sse rt ingtha

t hi s f a ilure to s ub mit

his plans pr ior

to construction wa s immaterial in view of the Association’s conditional appr oval. Unlike the instant
case , howeve r, the restric tions at issue in Pi larc ik expressly g ave the arc hitectura l control committee in t h at ca se the a

uthority to waive the r estrictions in question. Id. a t 47 6, 48 0. I n r e a c hin g its ho ldi ng that the arc hit e c tur a l c on tr ol c omm itt e e wa ive d th e c ov e na nt p ro hib iti ngc omp os iti on ro of s, the Texas Supreme Court conc luded: [The arc hitectura l control committee’s] appr o v al of construc tion plans without requiringstrict ad h erence to the submissi on of construc tion plans impl ies that the [architectur al control c ommitt ee] has wa ived the re quirement that th o s e p l ans be su b m itted. That waive r is within the authority g iven to the [architec tural control committee] in t he re strictive cove nants, provided that the v al u e of the house is not less than $50,0000. Id
. As previously noted, the Approva l Re quest For m require d the submission of a “dimensioned site plan draw ing.” At most, the eng ineer ’s drawing of t he septic sy stem attache d to the Approva l Re qu e s t F o r

m r a is e s a f

a c t is s u e a s to w h e th e r Ro dr igu e z c o mp li e d w it h th is r e qu ir e me nt. The eng ineer ’s draw ing cannot establish as a matter of la w that Rodrig uez submit ted the“f ull set of plans04

- 08

- 00 31 7- CV

1 ... B ecause we rev e rs e o n t he A ss o ci at i o n’ s f i rs t i ss ue, we d o not ad d res s t he A ss o ci at i o n’ s second i ss ue regardi ng t he t ri al co urt ’ s i ncl usi o n of f i nd i ngs o f

f act and co ncl usi o ns o f

l aw i n i t s o rder.

- 8- and spec if

ic a ti o n s ” th a t w e r e r e qu ir e d b y th e D e c la

r a ti o na s a

p r e r e qu is it e to th e A s s o c iati o n ’s
a pp ro va l. I n addition, the Conditi onal Site Plan Approva l stated onl y that the “location and si ze” of the home wer e ac cepte d and appro v ed . The location and siz e of the home wer e provide d to the As so c ia tio n b y

Rod ri g ue z be c a

us e the Ap pr ov a l Re qu e st F o r m s t a t e d th a t th e dim e ns ion

of the ho us e would be 51 fee t w ide and 54 fee t long and contain 2000 square fee t a nd the engin ee r’ s d ra wi ng diag rame d the location of the house. We ca nnot, however , conclude that the Association’s
c on dit ion a l a

pp ro va l statin g that the loc a tio n and size of the ho me we re a pp ro ve d co nclusi ve ly established, as a

matter of law, that all of the de tails of the construc tion were approve d by the Association g iven that: (1) the A pproval Reque st Form noted a distinction between fina l approva l
and c on dit ion a l a

pp ro va l; ( 2) the As so c ia tio n sen t noti c e of the ro of ’s no nc omp lia

nc e wi thi n th ir

ty da y s a ft e r t he Ap pr ov a l Re qu e st F ro m w a s su bmi tte d; a

nd (3 ) a fa c t is su e e xists wi th rega rd to whethe r Ro dr igu e z s u

b mi tt e d a “ d im e n s io n e d s it e p la n dr aw in g ” o r a “ f

u ll s e t o f plans and specific ations.” Cf. Hardee v. W estminster Glen Phase I Home owner’s Ass’n, Inc

. , N o . 03-00- 00445-CV, 2001 WL 223383, at *4 (Tex. App.—Austin Mar. 8, 2001, no pet.) (f inding homeow ner failed t o s u bmit development plan re quired for approva l by

arc hitectura l control committee). Acc ording ly , we c onclude that the tr ial court e rre d in gr ant i n g summary judgme nt in favor of Ro dr igu e z. 104

- 08

- 00 31 7- CV

- 9- C ONCL US I ON Be cause Rodrigue z only

moved for summar

y judgme nt on the basis that the Association had ap p r o v e d th e c o n s tr

u c ti o n o f th e r e s id e n c e an d th e r e c o r d r a is e s g e n u in e is s u e s o f mate rial fa ct reg ardingthe ef

fec t of t he Association’s conditional approva l, we rever se the trial c ourt’s summary jud g me nt a

nd re mand the c a us e to t he tr ia l c ourt

fo r f ur the r p ro c e e din g s.

Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice