### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-13-00569- CV

WC P aradise Cove M arina, LP; World Class Capital Group, LL C; WC P aradise Cove G P , LLC; and Natin P aul, Pe titioners

v. Jordan Herm an, Michael Whittington an d Deborah Whittington , Respondents

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 419 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -GN-1 1-0 0330 8, H ONO RAB LE TIM SULAK , JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

WC Paradise Cove Marina, L P; World Class C ap ital Group, L L C; WC Paradise Cove GP, L L C; and Natin Paul filed a petition for permissive interlocutory appea l, complaining of the trial court’s interlocutory order in favor of J ordan Herman, Michael W hittington and De borah Whit tington. He rman a

nd the Whitt ingtons oppose the g ranting of the pe tition. The und er l y i n g dispute conce rns whether a restric tive covena nt contained in a 1956 deed bars petitione rs fr o m constructing and operating a rec reational vehicle park on the banks of L ake Travis. Her man and the Whit tingtons s u ed petitioners, asser ting that the RV park violated the covena

nt, which provides that no g rante es would use the land “for camping by persons other than those for whose benef it the s aid easement i s rese rved and dedica ted.” He rm an and the W h i t tingtons m oved for partial summ ary judgme nt, arg uing that the covenant, as a matter of l aw, bars petitioners from using the land as an RV park and that they wer e entitled to summary judgme nton petitioners’ aff irmative defe nses of ratification, waiver , abandonme nt, limit ations, and lache s. Petitioners responde d that the covena nt was ambig uous, prese nting evidenc e rela ted to the land, its p u rc h as e, an d its ear lier usag e, and that there wer e live issues of fac t rela ted to their aff irmati v e d e f e n s e s . T h e tr ia l c o u

r t r u le d a g a in s t p e ti ti o n e r s , g r a n ti n g p a r ti a l s u mm a r y ju d g me n t a

n d p e r ma n e n tl y enjoining pe titioners from construc ting or operating a

n RV park on the pr operty

. Pe ti ti o n e r s a

r g u e th a t th e tr ia l c o u r t’ s in te r lo c uto r y o r d e r d e c id e d c o n

tr o ll in g q u e s ti o n s of law about which there are substantial g rounds for differ ing opinions when it decide d how the 1956 covena

nt should be interpre ted and applied and in ruling ag ainst petitioners on their aff irmative defe nses. See Tex. R. App. P . 28.3.

We have car efully revie wed the petition and the response . As in King-A Corporati on d/b/a McDonald’s, Robstown v. W ehling , the fa ct that the trial c ourt ruled a g ainst petitioners does

n o t m ean that the court decide d a controlling question of law about which there is substantia l g round for a differ ence of opinion. See No. 13-13-00100- CV, 2013 Tex. App. L EXI S 2761, at *8-9 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Mar. 14, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.); see also Tex. R. App. P. 28.3(e) (4). We deny the petition for per

missive appeal.

__________________________________________

David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Rose and Goodwin Petition for Permissive Appeal De nied Filed: September

6, 2013

2