### NUM BER 13-07- 0031 2-CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## E D I N B U R G
A NTHONY J. SHI OLENO A ND SRI PRO PER TIES , L .P., A pp ellan ts,
v. SA ND PIPER

C OND OM INIU M S COU NC IL OF OWN ERS , INC ., A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 3 19t h Dist rict C ou rt o f N ue ces Co un ty , T exas .



## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re J u st ic es R o d rig u ez , G arza , a n d V el a M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ga rza App ellant s, Anth ony J. Shiolen o an d SRI Prop erties, L. P. (collectively “Shiolen o”), appeal from a jud g ment of the tr ial co urt den y ing mandamus r eli ef and as ses si ng atto rney’s fees in favor of a ppe llees, Sa ndp iper Cond om inium Counc il o f Ow ners, In c.T hi s i s an appea l f r om an or i gi nal pr oceedi ng f or a wr i t of m andam us i ni t i at ed i n t he t r i al cour t whi ch 1 i s d i ff e re n t fro m a n o rig i n a l p ro c e e d i n g fo r a w rit o f m a n d a m u s fil e d i n a n a p p e l l a te c o u rt. See Ander son v. C i ty o f S e v e n P o in ts , 806 S. W

. 2d 791, 792 n. 1 ( T ex. 199 1)

. “ An or i gi nal pr oceedi ng f or a wr i t of m andam us i ni t i at ed i n t he t r i al cour t i s a ci v i l act i on su bj ect t o t r i al and appeal on subst ant i v e l aw i ssues and t he r ul es of pro c ed ure as an y ot he r ci vi l su i t

. ” I d.

Sh i ol en o ow ns SRI Pr op er t i es , L

. P. 2 T h e p a r tie s d o n o t d is p u te S a n d p ip e r ’s n o n - p r o f it s ta tu s ; in f a c t, S a n d p ip e r ’s n o n - p r o f it s ta tu s is 3 speci f i cal l y not ed i n i t s Ar t i cl es of I ncor por at i on. 2 (“ Sandpi per”) , a non- profit c or porati on. The under ly ing l aw sui t i s a mandamus proceed ing institut ed b y

Shiolen o w here by Shio leno so ught to com pel insp ection of Sand pipe r’s books and records. By

si x i ss ues, Shi ole no c ontends thatthe tr ial co urt er re d i n deny in g i ts 1 mandamus and g ra nti ng Sandp ipe r att o rn e y’s fees. W e rev erse and remand for proceed ing s cons is tent w it h thi s opi nio n w it h re spect to Shi ole no’ s ins pect ion righ ts and San dpip er’s declarat oryju dg me nt a cti on ; w e affi rm the trial court’s impositio n of reason able adm inistrative ex pen ses. I. F A CT UA L A ND P ROC EDURA L B A CKGRO UND Shio leno ow ns un its in the Sa ndp iper C o n dom inium comm unity in Port Aransa s, Tex as. Sa ndpi per

i s a Tex as non- profit cor porati on w hic h functi ons as the c ondomi niu m 2
a s s o c ia t io n fo r t h e S a n d p ip e r C o n d o m in iu m co m m u n it y. 3 Shio leno serv ed o n the Sand pipe r board of dire c t o rs u n t il his resignation on Ap ril 22, 2006. Pr ior

to his resi g nati on, S hio len o s ent a l etter on F ebr uar

y 2, 2006, to C har les Crawford, th e he ad o f

Condo min ium Consu lt in g Mana geme nt Se rv ices, Inc. (“ CCMS”) , infor ming hi m of sus pect ed ac count ing i rreg ula ri ti es, poor manag ement pract ic es, and the mis handl ing of v ar iou s reser v e funds. In thi s l etter , Sh iol eno al leg ed th at s uch pract ic es had “ poss ibl e neg ati v e tax and financi al ra mific ati ons re achi ng al l Sandpiper C ondo Ow ners.” Sh iol eno furt her req u e st ed th at C CM S c onduc t an acc ounti ng and ceas e andT est i m ony at t r i al est abl i shed t hat Sandpi per was awar e t hat G osm an was Shi ol eno’ s aut hori z ed 4 r epr esent at i v e an d ag ent i n con duct i ng t he i nspect i on o fSandpi per ’ s boo k s and r ecor ds.

T he r ecor d con t ai ns an e- m ai l sent by W i l l i am Per r y t o Sandp i per boa r d m em ber s on M ar ch 28 , 5 2006, wi t h t he t er m , “ Al er t , ” cont ai ned i n t he subj ect l i ne of t he e- m ai l

. T he e
- m ai l st at ed t he f ol l owi ng: “ Fre d G osm an, a C PA hi r ed by T ony , has cont act ed Ji m T r i pl et t , C C M S, R on Par k , and C hav e wi t h quest i ons a bout 3 desi st from sp endi ng addi ti onal re ser v e funds. At tr ial , Shi ole no’ s t ri al couns el, Ant hony J. Bar bie ri , t est ified thatShi ole no nev er recei v ed a re spons e f ro m C CM S reg ardin g i ts Februa ry 2, 200 6 lette r. On cross-ex am inatio n, Ba rbieri adm itt e d t hatthis letter m erely re q uest ed a “ful l acc ounti ng ” ra ther than a req uestfor s peci fic d ocument s o r for ac ces s t o Sandpi per ’s faci li ti es. Ba rb ier i furthe r noted that he w as not s ure w hether any of the Sandpi per

di re cto rs had re cei v ed th e l etter

. Subs eq uentl y , on Ma rc h 27, 2006, F re d W . Gosman, III , a forens icac count ant h ired by Shio leno , subm itted an e-mail to Ji m Triplett, San dpip er’s custod ian of records. In this

4
e- mail , G osman sta ted that he w as hired by Shi ole no “ to i nspect t he book s, re cords, and papers o f [Sandp ipe r]

. Our i nspecti on i s b ein g per formed w it hin M r. Shi ole no’ s a uthor ity as a membe r o f

C OA’ s [ condo mini um ow ners’ as soc iat ion ] boa rd of direct ors . . . . ” Gos man tes ti fied th at p rio r to the Ma rc h 27, 2006 email , he left s ev eral mess ag es for T riplett indica ting that he wa s trav eling to Corpus Christi and th at he desired to inspect Sandpi per ’s boo ks and re cords at t hat t ime. G osman noted, how ev er , t hat h e nev er re cei v ed a re spons e from Tr ipl ett. Later that day , Gos man trav ele d to Cor pus Chr is ti to ins pectSandp ipe r’ s b ooks and re cords, and he s tay ed th ere unt il M arch 31, 20 06. W hil e i n C or pus Chr is ti , G osman re peatedl y

tr ied to cont actTri ple tt and R on Par k, Sandpi per ’s ac count ant, to s chedu le an ins pect ion of Sandpi per ’s book s a nd records. On Ma rc h 28, Tri ple tt re ferred Go sman t o Crawford to sch edu le t h e inspect ion. Subse quently, Park respon ded to Gosm an’s 5o u r b o o k s , a c c o u n ti n g , e tc .” T h e T e x a s B u s in e s s O r g a n iz a tio n s C o d e d o e s n o t a p p ly to e x is tin g d o m e s tic o r f o r e ig n e n tit ie s u n til 6 J a n u a ry 1 , 2 0 1 0 , u n l e s s th e e n ti ty e l e c ts to a d o p t t h e p ro v i s i o n s e a rly

. See A c t o f M a y 2 9 , 2 0 0 3 , 7 8 th L e g ., R

. S. , ch. 182 , § 1, sec. 402

. 005, 200 3 T ex. G en. Laws 2 67, 593. T he r ecor d does not r ef l ect t hat Sandpi per e le c te d to a d o p t t h e b u s in e s s o r g a n iz a tio n s c o d e p r o v is io n s e a r ly.
4 tel ephone cal ls , butPar k d eni ed Go sman a cc ess to Sandpi per ’s books and rec ords. U pon cont act ing C ra wford, Gos man w as prov ide d a c ompactdi scco ntai nin g 2,90 0 pag es of detai led g eneral led g ers g enerated on Ma rc h 30, 2 006, by C CM S’ s c omputer

sy ste m. At tr ia l, Go s m a n n o te d th a t t h is in fo rm a ti o n co n st it u te d “ba tc h ac co u n ti n g,” a n d , a lt h o u gh hel pful, t he i nformati on di d noti ncl ude bac kup transacti ons, w hic h prov ide more det ail ed infor mati on as to w hat w as re corded in the v ar iou s acc ounts

. On appeal , Sh iol eno not es tha t Gosm an w as not provided access to the “transactio n de tails for general ledger entries, [F or m] 1099s fil ed by Sandp ipe r, ac ces s t o Sand pip er ’s co mputers, or co mplet e cor re spond ence as re q uest ed.” On A pr il 6, 2006, Gos man w as prov ide d w it h hard c opi es of Sandpi per ’s i ncome tax re tur ns from 2002 to 20 06, d e p reci ati on s chedu les , Sh iol eno’ s I RS F or m 1099, and t he ass oci ati on’ s mana g ement c ontract s w it h C CMS f ro m 1999 and 200 4. Unh appy w it h Sandpi per ’s efforts in all ow ing Gos man to ins pectits book s and reco rd s and after se v eral addi ti onal i nformati on req uest s, Shi ole no filed a peti ti on for w ri t of manda mus t o c ompel Sandpi per to per mit ins pect ion of t he re maini ng cor porate re cords on Apr il 18, 20 0 6 . In it s p eti ti on, S hio len o re q uest ed attor ney ’s fees pursuant to sec ti on 3.152( c) of t he Tex as Busi ness Org ani z ati ons Cod e 6 and article 2.44 , section D of th e T exas Business Cor porati ons Act

. See Act of M ay 29, 2003, 78th Leg ., R. S., ch. 182, § 1, sec . 3. 152, 2003 Tex . G en. L aw s 2 67, 3 27- 28; T EX . B US . C ORP . A CT A NN . a rt . 2. 44, § D ( Ver non Su pp.A t tria l , S h i o l e n o a rg u e d th a t i t w a s e n ti tl e d to a tto rn e y ’ s f e e s u n d e r s e c ti o n 8 2 .1 6 1 (a ) o f th e p ro p e rty 7 code r at her t han sect i on 3

. 152 oft he b usi ness o r gani z at i ons co de o r ar t i cl e 2. 44( D ) oft he T exas Busi ness C o rp o ra ti o n s A c t, b o th o f w h i c h th e p a rti e s a g re e d w e re i n a p p l i c a b l e g i v e n S a n d p i p e r’s n o n -p ro fit s ta tu s . See Burt on v. C r

avey , 7 5 9 S .W .2 d 1 6 0 , 1 6 2 (T e x . A p p .– H o u s to n [1 s t D i s t.] 1 9 8 8 , n o w rit ); see a lso T EX . B US
. C OR P . A C T A NN . art

. 9. 14 (A ) ( V ern on S up p . 20 07 ); T EX . P ROP
. C OD E A NN . § 82. 161( a) ( Ver non 2007) ( “ T he pr ev ai l i ng par t y i n an act i on t o enf or ce t he decl ar at i on, by l aws, or ru l es i s ent i t l ed t o r easona bl e at t or ney ’ s f ees and cost s of

l i t i gat i on f r om t he n on pre vai l i ng p ar t y . ” )

. T he r ecor d r ef l ect s t hat Shi ol eno di d no t pl ead f or s e c ti o n 8 2 .1 6 1 a tto rn e y ’ s fe e s i n i ts p e ti ti o n fo r w rit o f m a n d a m u s . See T EX . P ROP
. C OD E A NN . § 8 2.16 1(a ). H owev er , t he t r i al cour t al l owed ( 1) Shi ol eno t o am end i t s pl eadi ngs a nd ( 2) Bar bi er i t o t est i f y as t o t he i ssue ofat t or ney ’ s f ees. T he r ecor d con t ai ns a br i ef f i l ed by Shi ol eno i n suppor t of i t s pet i t i on f or wr i t ofm andam us wher eby Shi ol eno speci f i cal l y not ed t hat sect i on 82. 161 pr ov i des f or at t or ney ’ s fe es i n t he ev ent t hat i t i s t he pr ev ai l i ng p ar t y . O n ap peal , Shi ol eno does not add r ess i t s ent i t l em ent t o at t or ney ’ s f ees. I nst ead, Shi ol eno m ere l y at t ac k s t he prop ri ety of t he t ri al co urt ’ s aw ard i ng of att orn ey ’ s fee s t o S an dp i pe r.

It i s u n d i s p u te d th a t S h i o l e n o ’ s s p e c i a l e x c e p ti o n s w e re d e n i e d b y th e tri a l c o u rt. 8
5 2007)

. O n M ay 15, 2006, Sandpi per filed it s or ig ina l answ er , ass erti ng thati t had prov ide d

7 suf fici ent i nformati on for Gos man’s i nspecti on of i ts books and re cords. Ac company ing San dpip er’s orig inal an sw er was a coun terclaim for a decla ratory judgme nt th at it acte d in acc ordance w it h the declarati ons and by laws o f the Sand pip er C ondomi niu m communi ty and for atto rney’s fees. On August 14 , 200 6, the trial court g rante d Shio leno leave of court to fil e s peci al ex cept ion s. Shi ole no fil ed i ts spec ial ex cept ion s w it h the tr ial co urt on September

15, 2006, all eg ing thatSandp ipe r’ s c ountercl aim for de cla ra tor y reli ef w as imper mis si ble bec ause it w as broug ht s ole ly to pav e the w ay

for a ttor ney ’s fees. Shi ole no ass erted t hat t he D ecl arator y Ju dg ment Act i s n ot av ail abl e to se tt le d isputes al re ady before t he tr ial co urt an d t hat S andpi per ’s co untercl aim address es the s ame i ss ues brou ght forth by Shiolen o in its petitio n for w rit of man dam us. 8 After a b e n ch t rial , t he tr ial co urt den ied Shi ole no’ s p eti ti on for w ri t of mandamus and g ra nted Sandpi per ’s co untercl aim on Apr il 20, 2007. In doi ng so, th e tr ial co urt reci ted the fol low ing f ind ing s i n i ts jud g ment: ( 1) the tr ial co urt had personal and subj ectmatte r jur is dicti on ov er

the par ti es and c lai ms; (2 ) Sandpi per full y co mpli ed w it h i ts by laws, the Tex as Uni form C ondomi niu m Act , see T EX . P ROP . C OD E A NN . § 82.114 (V er non 200 7) , and6

the Tex as Non -P ro fit Cor porati on Act “i n the ti meli ness and t he manner i n w hic h i t made the reco rds o f

its af fairs a v ailable for in spect ion by SHIOLENO,” see T EX . R EV . C IV . S T AT . A NN . art. 1396- 2 .2 3 ( Ver non 200 3) ; ( 3) thatShi ole no may i nspect “ further

records or comput ers u sed by

Sandp ipe r in it s o perati ons, ” but it must reimburse CC MS at the rate of $50.00 p er

hour for t he time of

CCM S’ s bookk eeper

and at the rate of $80.00 p er hour for C CM S’ s p erson n e l to as sembl e the records and attend the i nspecti on; a nd ( 4) Sandpi per

w as enti tl ed to $10, 759.00 in attor ney ’s fees based on its decl arator y j udg ment act ion

. Shi ole no fil ed i ts noti ce of appeal on M ay 18, 2007. This appeal ens ued. II. A N AL Y S IS A . Shioleno’s Petition for Wri t of Mandamus to Enforce Inspec tion Right s By its f irst issue, Shiole no co nte nds th at a trial court m ay notref use to issue a w rit of man dam us pe rmitting a non -p ro f it a ssociatio n me mb er to inspe ct the associat ion’s boo ks and records once the m em ber ha s sh own i ts ent itlem entto inspe ct such m ate rials and i ts re q uest s t o do so hav e been deni ed. Shi ole no al so arg ues that itprov ed a proper pur pose for the ins pect ion and that Sandpi per faile d to neg ate S hio len o’s proper pur pose. Con v ersel y , Sa ndpi per arg ues that Shio le n o f a iled to es tabl is h tha t i t w as enti tl ed to ma nda mu s relief

beca use it failed to show tha t it did notalready obta in all relief to w hich it w as proper ly enti tl ed. In addi ti on, Sandpi per note s t hat S hio len o w aiv ed i ts enti tl ement to Sa ndp iper’s Forms 10 99 a t trial. 1. A pp licab le L aw A w rit of ma nda mu s f iled in the trial court is the prope r rem edy to enforce a sta tuto ry ri g ht of i nspecti on. Bur

ton v . Cra vey, 759 S.W .2d 160, 161 (Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ]O n appeal , S andpi per cont ends t hat Shi ol eno er r oneou sl y r el i es on Burt on , 7 5 9 S .W .2 d a t 1 6 1 , a 9 c a s e “ d is c r e d ite d ” b y th e T e x a s S u p r e m e C o u r t in H u i e v . D e S h a zo , 92 2 S

. W

. 2d 92 0, 92 4 (T e x . 19 96 ). H owev er , S andpi per ’ s cont ent i on i s not ent i r el y accur at e. I n H u ie , t he supr em e cour t concl uded t hat “ t o t he ext ent t hat t he cour t hel d t hat t he owner s’ st at ut or y r i ght of i nspect i on som ehow t r um ped t he pr i vi l eg e for conf i dent i al at t or ney - cl i ent com m uni cat i ons, we di sappr ov e of i t s hol di ng . . . . W e al so di sappr ov e of t he c o u r t’s d ic ta th a t t h e tr ia l c o u r t c o u ld , in its d is c r e tio n , d e c lin e to a p p ly th e a tt o r n e y- c lie n t p r iv ile g e e v e n ifa ll t he el em ent s ofR ul e 503 w er e m et

. ” 922 S. W

. 2d at 924. T her ef or e, t he H u ie cour t m er el y di sappr ov ed o f t he Burt on d e c is io n w ith r e s p e c t to a n o w n e r ’s r e q u e s t to in s p e c t a tt o r n e y r e c o r d s a s p a r t o fth e a s s o c ia tio n ’s re c o rd s . I d. 7 1988, no w ri t) , d

i s a pp r o v e d o n o t h e r g r o u n ds b y H u ie v . D e S h a zo , 922 S.W .2d 9 20, 9 24 (Te x . 199 6); see Uv

alde v. Rock Asph alt Co. v. Loughr idg e , 4 2 5 S

. W

. 2 d 8 1 8 , 8 2 0 (T e x. 9 196 8) (“A meth od fo r the enforcem ent of the rig ht of inspe ction o r ex am inatio n of the bo oks and records of a cor porati on i s b y manda m u s.” ). Shi ole no di d nothav e to est abl is h an ind ependentca use of acti on; i t merely had to es tabl is h i ts sta tutor y r ig ht t o i nspect. Id. T he T exas Non-Prof it Corporatio n Act prov ides that a non -prof it corporat ion m ust keep “c or re ct and compl ete books and re cords of ac count ,” and a member of t h a t nonprofit c or porati on has the ri g ht “ on w ri tten demand s tati ng the pur pose of t he demand .

. . atany reason abl e time, for anyproper pur pose” to ex amine and c opy thos e book s a nd re cords rel ev ant to that purpos e, at the m ember ’s ex pense . T EX . R EV . C IV . S T AT . A NN . art. 1396 -2.23. “Th e rig ht to inspectund er article 139 6-2.2 3 en com passe s all book s a nd records.” Bur

ton , 759 S.W .2d at 162 ( em pha sis add ed) ( intern al quotat ion s o m itted ). Addi ti onal ly , t he Tex as Uni form C ondomi niu m Actprov ide s, in re lev ant p art, that: (a ) The ass oci ati on s hal l keep: (1 ) detai led financi al re cords that compl y w it h g enerall y accepted acc ounti ng p ri nci ple s a nd th at are s uff ic ien tl y deta il ed to enabl e the ass oci ati on to prepare a resal e c erti ficat e under Sec ti on 82. 157;

. . . . (b) Al l fi nanci al and ot

her r ecor ds of t he as sociat

io n shall

beI n i t s pet i t i on f or w ri t of m andam us, Shi ol eno cont ended t hat i t was en t i t l ed t o For m s 109 9 t hat 10 Sandpi per had i n i t s r ecor ds. H owev er , on appea l , Shi ol eno st at es t hat “ [ t ] he so l e exce pt i on t o t he r ecor ds sought t hr ough m andam us bu t not pr oduced i s [ t he] 109 9s re l ati ng t o ot herowner s whi ch, as di scussed h e re i n , a re n o l o n g e r i n c o n tro v e rs y .” 8

reaso nab ly available at its registered office or its principa l office in this state f or exam ina ti

on by a un it owner and the o wner’

s a gents

. An attor ney ’s fil es and records rel ati ng to the a ss oci ati on are notrecords of the as soc iat ion and are notsu bje ct to i nspecti on by uni t ow ners o r p ro d u ct io n in a le gal pro ce e d in g. T EX . P ROP . C OD E A NN . § 82 .11 4 (em pha sis adde d). The r ig ht of c ondomi niu m ow ners to insp ectthe books and re cords is onl y l imi ted by the req uirement t hat t he i nspecti on be for any proper pur pose. Bur

ton , 759 S. W .2d a t 162. Onc e Shi ole no prov ed a p ro p e r p u rp ose for th e i nspecti on, t he burden s hifted to Sandpi per

to prov e that Shiol eno’ s ins pect ion req uestw as for an improper pur pose. See id. (ci ti n g Uv

alde R ock

As phalt C o. , 425 S.W .2d a t 820 ; Moor e v . R ock Cre ek Oi

l Cor p. , 59 S. W .2d 8 15, 8 17 ( Tex . C om m ’n A p p . 1933, hol din g approv ed) ; 5A F LETC H ER , C Y C LOPEDI A OF T H E L AW OF P R I VAT E C OR POR AT I ON S § 2253. 1 ( 1987) ). 2. Disc ussi on 10 a. Shiole no’s Wri tten Requ e s ts to Inspec t Sandpiper’s Books and Records Sandpape r’ s b y laws e cho the s tatut or y prov is ion s req uir ing Sandpiper to make i ts books and re co rd s a v ail abl e to ow ners. See T EX . R EV . C IV . S T AT . A NN . art. 1396- 2.23; T EX . P ROP . C OD E A NN . § 8 2

. 1 1 4

. Sp e c if ic a ll y, se c t io n 3

. 1 1 o f t h e S a n d p ip e r’ s b yla ws prov ide s t hat: The Board of Di re cto rs shall keep or cause to be kept s uff ic ien t boo ks and re cords w it h a d e taile d ac countof the recei pts and ex pendi tures of the Cou nci l. Su ch books and re cords must co m p ly with g ood ac count ing procedu re s a nd mus t be audi ted a t l eastonc e eac h y ear by an audi tor

w hoAt t r i al , Shi ol eno t est i f i ed t hat he curren t l y owned t wo uni t s i n t he Sand pi per C ondom i ni um 11 c o m m u n ity a n d th a t h e h a d p r e v io u s ly o w n e d tw o a d d itio n a l u n its in th e c o m m u n ity. 9 is not ass oci ated w it h the Proje ct. The books, r ecor ds and p a p e rs of

the Cou nci l shal l at al l ti m es dur in gr eason able bus ine ss

hour s b e s ubject

to inspe ction b y any Mem ber of th e Coun cil. (E mphasi s a dded.) Shi ole no first re q uest ed to i nspect Sandpi per ’s books and rec ords on Febr uar y 2, 200 6, sta ting that th e pu rpose of the insp ection w as t o ex pose accou nting irregularities, poor manag ement pract ic es, and the mish andl ing of va ri ous re ser

v e funds b y

Sandp ipe r that had “p oss ibl e neg ati v e tax and financi al ra mific ati ons re achi ng al l Sandpi per C ondo Ow ners.” Thi s req uestw as sentto Crawford, and Barbi er i tes ti fied at tri al thathe d id not re cei v e a respon se. On Ma rc h 27, 2 006, Gos man se nt an e- mail to Tri ple tt re q uest ing that Sandpi per ’s book s a nd records be made av ail abl e for ins pect ion

. In thi s e- mail , G osman li ste d fifteen i tems of part ic ula r impor tanc e to the ins pect ion , y et he spec ific all y noted the follo w ing : “[ p]l ease understa nd th at t he abov e l is t of i tems maynot be al l- inc lus iv e, as addi ti o n a l i n fo r ma t i o n a n d d o c u me n t s m a y b e c o me n e e d e d d u r i n g t h e c o u rs e o f o ur procedu re s.” G osman tes ti fied attr ial that he i ncl udes thi s l ang uag e i n ev er y i nspecti on request he make s beca use h e is unsure of w hatinforma tion wi ll be pr o vid ed. How ever, Gos man note d that, i n thi s c ase, he req uest ed a detai led g eneral led g er , among othe r thi ng s, “i n order

to tr uly understa nd th e transacti ons that had bee n repor ted .

. . . ” At t he ti me thes e req uest s w ere s ent, iti s u ndi sput ed th at S hio len o w as a member of the San dpi per

C ondomi niu m communi ty for at lea st si x

m onths , and he w as a di re cto r on Sandpip er ’s board of direct ors. I n i ts peti ti on for w ri t of mandamus , Sh iol eno s tated 11 that the p ur pose for th e i nspecti on w as “rela ted t o hi s i nterest s a s a di re cto r of the10

cor porati on w hose functi on i t i s t o ex amine cor porate c ircums tanc es and ev alu ate a cti ons propose d by

the board of

direct ors.” Addit ion all y , Sh iol eno t est ified at tr ial thatthe re ason he i nv oked his ins pect ion ri g hts w as that he “b ecame conc er ned about cer tai n w ay s t hat accou nting w as be ing performe d at the San dpip er.” Shio leno also testif ied that i n his role as a Sand pip er

di re cto r, he o bser

v ed th at “ the q ual ity

of li fe w asn’ t i mprov ed [for i ndi v idu al cond o owners] and ex pen ses w entup.” In i ts firs t amende d or ig ina l answ er and count ercl aim, Sandpi per merel y st ated that Shi ole no fail ed to sa ti sfythe c o n d i t i o n s p re c e d e nt— i. e., est abl is hin g a proper pur pose—for it s req uest for ins pect ion

. How ev er , Sa ndpi per di d notprov ide any

ev ide nce to s uppor

t i ts conc lus or

y st atement thatShi ole no had faile d to est abl is h a p ro per pur pose. I n fact, on appeal , Sa ndpi per does not c ontes t Sh iol eno’ s p ur pose for i nit iat ing the ins pect ion

. Base d on our rev iew of the record, w e c oncl ude t hat S hio len o prov ide d the req uis it e w ri tten demand ac compani ed by a s tatementi ndi cat ing a proper pur pose. S ee T EX . R EV . C IV . S T AT . A NN . art. 1396-2.23; see a lso Bur ton , 759 S.W .2d a t 162

. Mo re ov er , w e find that San dpip er failed to prove that Sh ioleno had an improp er purp ose fo r requestin g to insp ect it s b ooks and re cords. See Bur ton , 759 S.W .2d a t 162

. b. Sandpiper’ s Denial of Shiole no’s Inspe ction Rights and Its A ttempts to Comply

w ith Shioleno’s Subs equent Requests Shio leno alleges a nd the reco rd a ppe ars t o suggest th at: (1) Sand pipe r repe ate dly den ied him access to its bo oks an d records ap pare ntly ma intain ed a t its principa l of f ice in Cor pus Chr is ti ; and ( 2) Sandp ipe r cont inu ally p rov ide d i ncompl ete i nformati on as to the financi al hea lt h o f

the ass oci ati on as req uired by st atute and by

i ts by laws. Shi ole no11

tes ti fied that Sandpi per sti ll had not prov ide d all the books and records re ferenc ed i n the F e b r u a r y 2 , 2 0 0 6 a n d M a r c h 2 7 , 2 0 0 6 re q u e s t s . G o s ma n re c e i v e d 2 , 9 0 0 p a g e s o f a g eneral led g er

i n el ect ro nicform on Ma rc h 28, 2006; he recei v ed an addi ti onal 465 pag es o f b o a rd min utes on M ar ch 30, 2 006; and he re cei v ed San dpi per ’s tax retur ns and t he ma nagem entcontract s between CCMS and S a n d p ip e r on Ap ril 6, 20 06. How ever, Gos ma n t e s t i fi e d t h a t h e d i d n o t re c e i v e d e p re c i a t i o n re g i s t e rs fro m S a n d p i p e r u nti l the wee k o f th e Au gus t 1 4 , 2 0 0 6 tri a l. Go sm a n f u rt h e r te st if ie d to th e fo llo wing: Q: [Shi ole no’ s couns el] : Had y ou had acc e ss to th e bo oks and re cords a nd th e com put er f iles w hen y ou were do wn here [C or pus] , w oul d i t hav e been ne ces sar y for a w ork ef

fort, I’ll call i t, by C CMS to gather this stu ff and copy

i t and g iv e i t t o y ou? A: [Gos man]: W ell , no. That w as the basi s for my bei ng here, w as to ea se t h e ef fort to prod uce th is infor mati on. If the infor mati on i s r ig ht t here i n a f ile cabin et, th en it’s v erysimple to say , “W ell, the inf o rmat ion i s r ig ht t here.” “ If y ou w ant copi es, fine. W e’l l make y ou c opi es, y ou c an make c opi es, but the i nformati on i s r ig ht t here.” See, the b ooks and re cord s th a t w e as ked for are w hat ’s ke pt in the norm al course o f busine ss. I t ’ s n o t h i n g t h a t n e e d s t o b e n e w l y c reated or pul led out of the et her [s ic ]. I m ean, it ’s the books and re cords that they hav e to hav e to ru n thei r ow n busi ness for thei r o wn f ina nci al re por ti ng . So w e aren’ t ask ing them to cr eate anythi ng , w e w ere justsi mply as ki ng ac ces s t o w hat t hey

al re ady had. Q: And I believe y ou te stif ied be fore t h a t y ou were den ied th at acce ss? A: In pa rt, y es. Q: Al l ri g ht.I n hi s Apr i l 22, 2006 e- m ai l , H ol m gr een not ed t he f ol l owi ng, i n r el ev ant par t : “ T ony — Sor r y I m i ssed 12 y o u r d e p a r t u r e d u r i n g t h e s e c o n d ( r e n t a l ) m e e t i n g t h i s a f t e r n o o n . I fMr

. S h i o l e n o s t i l l w i s h e s t o t a ke a d v a n ta g e o fb e in g h e r e t o in s p e c t r e c o r d s a n d c o m p u te r s ys te m s , a s I d e s c r ib e d th is m o r n in g , p le a s e c a ll m e . . . . CC M S can m ake i t s off i ces av ai l abl e f or t hi s t om or r ow (Sunda y ) [ Apr i l 23, 2006]

. R espect f ul l y , John H o l m g re e n .” 12 A: I am t he first one to ag re e w e g ot a lotof infor mati on, b ut t he re we re s o me real ly i mport ant par ts left ou t. Bar bie ri test if ie d that he sentan e -mai l on Apr il 21, 2006, to J ohn H olmg re en, San dpip er’s trial c oun sel, as a last at tem pt to enforce Sh ioleno ’s inspectio n rig hts, re q uest ing thatSandpiper m ake the remai nin g books and rec ords av ail abl e for i nspecti on. Bar bie ri note d i n the e- ma il th a t h e and Shi ole no w ere i n C or pus Chr is ti from Ap ri l 21 to 22 and that they

co uld eas il y

st op by Sandp ip e r’ s p ri nci pal off ic e and condu ct the ins pect ion of the remaini ng book s and reco rd s. On Apr il 22, 2006, Hol mg re en s ent a n email to Bar bie ri g ra nti ng acc ess to Sandpi per ’s remaini ng book s a nd records and c omputer f iles on Su nda y , April 2 3. Holm green also not ed th at Sh ioleno could insp ect Sa ndp iper’s 12 comput er sy ste ms on Saturday , Ap ri l 22, a t 10: 00 p. m. H ow ev er , Ba rb ier i and Sh iol eno we re n o ta b le t o in s p e c tt h e r e c o rd s o n t h e s e d a t e s b e c a u s e t h e y we re sc h e d u le d t o le a ve Cor pus Chr is ti pr ior

to 10:00 p.m. o n Ap ril 2 2 , a s Barbi er i had s tated i n hi s e -mai l to Hol mg re en. Then, on June 15, 2 006, Ho lm green s ent B ar bie ri anot her l etter noti ng that Sandpi per

had g ra nted Shi ole no ac ces s to the re maini ng books and re cords and c omputer sy ste ms from “M onday , J une 19, 2006, and cont inu ing until F ri day , J une 23, 2006, from 8:3 0 a.m . unt il 5:00 p. m. ” Hol m gr e e n f u rther no ted that“[t]he reco rds to w hich th is re spons e appl ies are the records desc ri bed i n ¶ 15 of M r. Gos man’s co mmunic ati on ofSandpi per ar gued at t r i al and now a r gues on a ppeal t hat i t at t em pt ed t o pr ocur e r ecor ds f r om R on 13 P ark , bu t he refus ed t o t urn o ver an y d oc um en t s . Pa rk cl ai m ed t ha t t he do c um en t s i n h i s po s s es s i on w ere wor k pr oduct and wer e, t hus, pr i v i l eged. As a r esul t , t he Par k pap er s hav e no t b ee n m ade av ai l abl e f or in s p e c tio n b y S h io le n o . T h e p r o p r ie ty o fP a r k ’s c la im o fp r iv ile g e is n o t w ith in th e s c o p e o fth is a p p e a l. 13 Marc h 27, 2006, and ¶ ¶ 7, 8, and 12 of y our l etter of Apr il 21, 2006,” i ndi cat ing that San dpip er still had not com plied w ith Shio leno ’s initial requests for inspect ion of its books and records. Sandpi per

reli es heav il y

on an e-mai l sentbyBar bie ri to Hol mg re en on Aug ust10, 2006, sta ti ng thatthe par ti es shoul d ar ra ng e to ins pectthe comput ers a nd c omputer fil es at S andpi per

and CC MS after

the bench tr ial on Aug ust 14, 2 006. Sandp ipe r arg ues that this state me nt conf irms “ yet an oth er of Appe llee’s repeated

of fers, pr ior

to the h ear ing , t o have App ellant s inspectits comp u t e r s ys t em s.” ( Em pha sis in orig inal.) On app eal, San dpip er note s thaton three se para te occasio ns, Shio leno was grante d access to insp ect it s b ooks and re cords: Ap ri l 22, J une 15, and Aug ust10. W hil e i t app ears Sandpi per tr ied to acc ommodate Shi ole no’ s sc hedul e, in the e nd, acc ordin g to Bar bie ri ’s Aug ust 10, 2006 e- mail , Sandpi per sti ll had not p ro duced much of the req uest ed i nformati on, i ncl udi ng : (1 ) back up or su ppor ti ng i nformati on for the previously

supp lied general ledger e ntries; (2) f ix ed asseta nd d epre ciation regi sters for all act iv ity betw een Se ptember

30, 2002, and Se ptember 30, 2005; ( 3) al l cont ra cts and ag re ements i nv olv in g S a ndpi per and the s er

v ic es of anyempl oy ee, c ontract or , or co mpany f rom Oct obe r 2003 to August 20 06; (4) all correspo nde nce b etween Sa n d p iper boa rd me mb ers o the r th an th e min ute s of the bo ard of

directors me etings; (5) all correspo nde nce betw een Ron P ark and Sand pipe r from Octob er 200 3 to Au gust 200 6; and (6) all w ork 13 papers prov ide d for

the audi t of

Sandpiper , inc lud ing the Res ort F und, from Sept ember 30,Sandpa per was en t i t l ed t o r ai se a f act i s s ue ov er whet her Shi ol eno had a pr operpur pose f or 14 w a n ti n g to s e e th e b o o k s , b u t i t fa i l e d to d o s o . See U val de Rock Asphal t C o. v. Lou ghr

i dge , 425 S. W

. 2d 8 18, 82 0 (T ex . 19 68 ). 14 2003 t hroug h Sept ember 30, 2005. Base d on the foreg oin g , w e c oncl ude t hat Sandpi per fail ed to co mply

w it h s ect ion 82. 114 of

the pro perty code, a rticle 1396 -2.23 , and section 3.11 of its ow n bylaw s in ma king its boo ks a nd records available to Shio leno at a reaso nab le time af ter Shio leno ’s i n i t i a l re q u e s t fo r i n s p e cti on. See T EX . R EV . C IV . S T AT . A NN . art. 1396- 2.23; T EX . P ROP . C OD E A NN . § 82.114. Shi ole no w as enti tl ed to personal ly i nspect Sa ndpi per ’s book s a nd re cords upon hi s first w ri tten re q uestst ati ng a proper pur pose. See T EX . R EV . C IV . S T AT . A NN . art. 1396- 2.23; see a lso Bur ton , 759 S.W .2d a t 162 ( noti ng that“ [t] he r ig ht t o inspe ction u nde r article 1396 -2.23 enco mp asses a ll books and re cor

ds ”) ( int er nal q uotat ion s o mitt ed) ( emphasi s a dded)

. W e bel iev e that th e l eg is lat ure’s i ntenti n g ra nti ng ow ners i nspecti on r ig hts of the b ooks and re cords of a non- profit co rpora ti on w as “t o prov ide ow ners w it h ready ac ces s to the books and rec ords of thei r cond omini um and the mo st logical place for keep ing these reco rds is on the p remise s.” Bd. of Di re cto rs of By the Se a C o u n c il of

Co-Own ers, Inc. v. So ndo ck , 644 S.W .2d 7 74, 7 82 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 1982, w ri t ref ’d n .r .e ). Fur ther more, i t doe s n ot ap pear thatSandp ipe r w as author iz ed to deny

Shi ole no ac ces s t o i ts books and re cords g iv en th at S hio len o had sta ted a proper

pur pose for th e i nspecti on. See T EX . R EV . C IV . S T AT . A NN . art. 1396- 2.23; 14 T EX . P ROP . C OD E A NN . § 82. 114; see a lso Bur ton , 759 S.W .2d a t 162

. W e do not fin d Sand pip er ’s g ra nts of acce ss to it s b ooks and re cords on Apr il 22, June 15, and Aug ust10, in keepi ng w it h the l eg is lat ure’s i ntent

. See T EX . R EV . C IV . S T AT .I n f act , at t he h ear i ng o n t he m ot i on t o en t er j udgm ent , Sandpi per ’ s coun sel acknowl edged t hey 15 wer e pr epar ed t o pr ov i de Shi ol eno access t o t he co m put er s and t he “ backup and suppor t i ng i nf or m at i on” t hat had been r equest ed. T hus, by Sandpi per ’ s own adm i ssi on, i t has not f ul l y com pl i ed wi t h Shi ol eno’ s r equest s. 15 A NN . art. 1396- 2.23; T EX . P ROP . C OD E A NN . § 82. 114; see a lso Bur ton , 759 S.W .2d a t 162 ; Son dock , 644 S.W .2d at 782. In part ic ula r, Sandpiper ’s grant of acces s t o i ts books and
re cords on Apr il 22—t he day that Bar bie ri sta ted t o H olmg re en th at he and Shi ole no had to l eav e Cor pus Chr is ti —at 10:00 p.m. can hardly be cons tr ued as reason abl e g iv en th at it s b y laws req uire tha t i nspecti o n s transpi re “ dur ing reason abl e bus ine ss hours . . . . ” Mo re ov er , w e do not fin d Sandpi per ’s g ra nt of ac ces s to it s books and re cords on June 15 and Aug u s t1 0 , a ft e r

s e v e ra l a d d i t i o n a l re q u e s t s w e re m a d e b y S h i o l e n o a n d m o re t h an four mont hs after Shi ole no’ s i nit ial req uestto ins pectSandp ipe r’ s b ooks a n d r e cords, to be reason abl e. It is unc lea r to t his C our t w hy Sandp ipe r did not acq uie sc e to Shi ole no’ s i n it ial
w ri tten demands for i nspecti on unti l more than four mont hs had el apsed i f the book s a nd re cords w ere, i ndeed, keptat the C or pus Chr is ti off ic e as req uired. See T EX . R EV . C IV . S T AT . A NN . a rt

. 1 3 9 6
- 2

. 23; T EX . P ROP . C OD E A NN . § 82. 114. Bec ause Shi ole no w as not perm itted access to Sa nd p ip er’s books a nd reco rds at San dpip er’s Corpus Christi of f ice at a re asona ble tim e a fte r Shi ole no made his i nit ial req uestst ati ng a proper pur pose for ins pect ion and becau se S a n d p ip er st il l has not p ro duced al l of the rele v ant d ocument s requeste d , we conclud e tha t San dpip er has no t com plied wi th th e T exas Non-Prof it

15 Cor porati on Act, the Tex as Uni form Condomi niu m Act , and i ts ow n by laws. See T EX . R EV . C IV . S T AT . A NN . art. 1396- 2.23; T EX . P ROP . C OD E A NN . § 82 .11 4. Accordin gly , w e susta in Shio leno ’s first issue on app eal.16

B. San dp ip er’s C ou nt ercl aim fo r D eclarat or y R elief an d A tt or ney ’s F ees By its secon d, th ir d, an d sixth issue s, Shiole no a sserts tha t San dpip er’s count er cl aim for dec larator y reli ef w as imper mis si ble bec ause itrais ed th e s ame i ss ues of
com pliance w ith the associat ion’s gov erning docu me nts as were add ressed in Shiolen o’s peti ti on for w ri t of

m andamus. Spec ific all y , Shiol eno arg ues that Sandpi per ca nnot br ing a cou nte rclaim un der the T exas Decla ratory Jud gmen t Act (“DJA”) where the coun terclaim merel y re- ass erts a par

ty ’s aff ir mati v e defense to t he unde rl y ing su it

. In ad dit ion , Sh iol eno arg ues that the t ri al cour t abu sed it s d is creti on i n aw ardin g Sandp ipe r att o rn e y’s fees becau se Sandpi per

w as not t he “ prev ail ing par ty .” Sandpi per , on the o ther hand, co ntends that Shi ole no fail ed to preser v e thi s is sue for appe al. I n addi ti on, S andpi per arg ues that it s count er cl aim, thoug h re lat ed to Shi ole no’ s or ig ina l cl aim, soug ht “a ff ir mati v e rel ief
conce rning the on going relation ship betw een the partie s,” the reby ma king its coun terclaim per mis si ble

. 1. A pp licab le L aw Dec larator

y j udg ments are rev iew ed unde r the s ame st andards as a ll ot her jud g ments. T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C OD E A NN . § 37.010 (V e rn o n 19 97) ; In r e Es tate of Schi wetz , 102 S.W .3d 3 55, 3 65 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2003, no pet.)

. W e loo k to t he proce dure used to resolve the issue attrial to dete rmine the sta nda rd of rev iew on ap pea l. Guthe ry v. T ayl or , 112 S.W .3d 715 , 7 2 0 (Tex. App. –Hou ston [14t h Dist.] 200 3, no pet. ); Rob er ts v. Squy

re s , 4 S.W .3d 4 85, 4 88 ( Tex . Ap p.–Bea umont 19 99, p et. deni ed) . The tr ial
cour t’ s c oncl usi on, b ein g one of law , w il l be upheld on appeal if it can be sus tai ned on any leg al theor

y s u p p o rt ed by

the ev ide nce. See Alm a Invs. , Inc. v. Ba hia Mar Co-Own ersS e c ti o n 3 7 .0 0 1 o f th e c i v i l p ra c ti c e a n d re m e d i e s c o d e p ro v i d e s th a t a “p e rs o n ” i s “a n i n d i v i d u a l, 16 par t ner shi p, j oi nt - st ock com pany , uni ncor por at ed associ at i on or soci et y , or m uni ci pal orot her cor por at i on o f an y ch ara c t er. ” T EX . C IV . P RAC
. & R EM . C OD E A NN . § 3 7 .0 0 1 (V e rn o n 1 9 9 7 ). 17 A s s ’n , 999 S.W .2d 8 20, 8 23 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 1999, pet. deni ed)

. Sect ion 37 .00 4 of

the civi l practice an d rem edie s code provi des: (a ) A person[ ] i nterest ed unde r a deed, w il l, w ri tten cont ra ct, or other w ri ti ng 16 const ituting a cont ract or w hose rig hts, sta tus, o r other legal r e la t ions are a f fe c t e d b y a st a t u t e , m u n ic ip a l o rd in a n c e , co n t ra c t , o r f ra n c h is e m a y h a ve deter mined any

q uest ion of

c o n st ru cti on or

v ali dity ar is ing under

the ins tr ument, sta tute, ordin ance, co ntra ct , o r fra n c his e and obtai n a d ecl arati on of rig hts, sta tus, o r other legal relations th ereu nde r. T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C OD E A NN . § 37.004( a) (V er non 1997)

. M oreov er , s ect ion 37.0 02 sta tes thatch apter

37 o f th e c iv il pract ic e and re medies co de i s i ntended to be remedia l in nature and “i ts pur pose is to set tl e and to afford reli ef f ro m unce rtai nty and ins ecur ity w it h respect t o r ig hts , s tatus , and othe r leg al re la ti o n s; a nd i t i s t o be li berall y co nst ru ed and adm inistered .” Id. § 37 .002( b) ( Ver non 199 7)

. How ever, declarato ry

relief is not availa b le to settle a disput e tha t is currently pendi n g b e fo re a co urt. BHP Petroleum Co., In c. v. Mil lard , 8 0 0 S

. W

. 2 d 8 3 8 , 8 4 1 (T e x. 199 0) (ori g. p ro c e edin g) ; Staff Ind. , Inc. v. Hallm ark Contract ing, In c. , 846 S.W .2d 5 42, 547 -48 ( T ex. App .–Corp us Christi 199 3, no w rit); John Chez ik Buick v. F ri endl y Chevr ole t , 749 S.W .2d 591 , 594 (Tex. App. –Dallas 19 88, wri t den ied) (conclud ing th at a de clarato ry jud g ment c ountercl aim w as not p ro per ly broug ht be cause t he i ss ue rais ed by the defendant w a s already before the c our

t as par t of the pla int iff’s c ase)

. Fur ther more, a defendant c annot ins ti tute a c ro ss -a cti on for d e cla ra tory reli ef if the c ro ss -a cti on fail s t o presenta j ust ic iab le cont ro v ersy separate f ro m the under ly ing su it

. See H itchc ock Pr ops. , Inc . v . Lev er ing , 776 S .W .2d 2 36, 2 39 (Te x . App .–Hou ston [ 1st Dist.] 19 89, w rit denied );S a n d p ip e r a r g u e s th a t s p e c ia l e x c e p tio n s a r e p le a s a n d th a t S h io le n o w a s n o t p e r m itt e d to s u b m it 17 i t s speci al excep t i ons o n t he d ay of t r i al

. Speci f i cal l y , Sandpi per not es t hat f or pl eadi ngs f i l ed wi t hi n sev en da y s of t ri al , l ea ve o f co urt m us t be ob t ai ne d. R ul e 6 3 of t he T ex as R ul es o f C i vi l P roc ed ure stat es t ha t l ea ve o f c o u rt “s h a l l b e g ra n te d b y th e ju d g e u n l e s s th e re i s a s h o w i n g th a t s u c h fi l i n g w i l l o p e ra te a s a s u rp ris e to th e o pp os i t e p art y . ” T EX . R. C IV . P

. 63

. T he rec ord refl ec t s , an d S an dp i pe r ad m i t s i n i ts re s p o n s e to S h i o l e n o ’s s p e c ia l e x c e p ti o n s , t h a t t h e tri a l c o u rt g ra n te d S h i o l e n o l e a v e to fi l e i ts s p e c i a l e x c e p ti o n s to S a n d p i p e r’s d e c l a ra to ry j u d g m e n t a c ti o n . See T EX . P ROP
. C OD E A NN . § 82

. 161. T her ef or e, we con si der S h i o l e n o ’ s s p e c i a l e x c e p ti o n s to h a v e b e e n p ro p e rlyfi l e d a n d c o n s i d e re d b y th e tri a l c o u rt. 18 see a lso Narisi v. Leg end Diversified Invs. , 715 S.W .2d 4 9, 51- 52 (Tex . Ap p.–D all as 1986,
w ri t ref’d n. r. e.) ( hol din g thata c ountercl aim broug ht under the DJ A th at present s n o new cont rov ersies, but is enginee red solely to pav e an av enu e for an a w ard of atto rney’s fees, is not prop er). 2. Disc ussi on W e first address Sandpi per ’s cont enti on that Shi ole no faile d to preser v e thi s i ss ue for appel lat e re v iew

. To preser v e a compl ain t for appel lat e re v iew , the c omplai nin g par ty 17
mu st presen t the com plaint to the trial court w ith suf f icient specif icity to m ake th e trial court aw are of the compl ain t. T EX . R. A PP . P. 3 3.1( a)

. In i ts spec ial ex cept ion s, Shi ole no claime d tha t San dpip er ’s declarato ry judgmen t action w as imp ermissible beca use it address ed th e s ame is sues ra is ed in Shi ole no’ s peti ti on for w ri t of mandamus i n order to pav e the w ay

for a ttor ney ’s fees. Gi v en th at S hio len o rais ed th is co ntent ion w it h the tr ial cour t i n i ts spec ial ex cept ion s, we c o n cl ude t hat S hio len o has preser v ed th is i ss ue for appel lat e rev iew

. See i d. In i ts count er cl aim for dec larator y rel ief, Sandpi per

soug ht “a decl arati on . . . thatthe Cou nci l act ed i n ac cordance w it h the D e cla ra ti on and By laws o f the Sand pip er C on do mi ni um a nd for

t he C ou ncil’s a tt or ne y s ’ [ s i c ] fee s .” I n s up po rt of i ts c ou nt erc l ai m, Sandpi per

arg ued t hat i t had produc ed the records Shi ole no had re q uest ed, that Shi ole no19

had fail ed to sa ti sfythe condi ti ons precede nt t o its re q uestfor i nspecti on, a nd th at t he pur pose of the i nspecti on w as improper . Ess enti all y , t hese cont enti ons are at the c ru x of Shi ole no’ s acti on for

m andamus reli ef. It is cl ear to thi s Cour

t that the c ontent ion s made in Sandpi per ’s co untercla im for d ecl arator y reli ef—Sandpi per ’s co mpli ance w it h i ts decl arati ons a n d b ylaw s— w ere al re ady

i n di sput e as a pa rtof Shi ole no’ s c ase and t hat Sandpi per ’s countercl aim w as bro ug ht for the pur pose of obtai nin g att or ney ’s fees und er the D JA. See BHP Pet roleum Co., In c. , 800 S.W .2d a t 841 ; Narisi , 715 S.W .2d a t 51- 52. Sandp ip e r re lies on t he hol din g s i n BHP Pet ro leu m , 800 S.W .2d a t 841 -8 2 and Placid Oil Co. v. Lou isiana Gas In trasta te, In c. , 734 S.W .2d 1 , 5- 6 ( Tex . Ap p.–D all as 1987,
w ri t ref’d n. r. e) to suppo rti ts cont enti on th at i ts count ercl aim for dec larator y reli ef broug ht forth a j ust ic iab le cont ro v ersy bec ause of the ong oin g nature of the re lat ion shi p betw een the p arti es. Sa ndpi per

furth er al leg es that thes e c ases su ppor t i ts cont enti on that the t ri al cour t di d noter r in aw ardin g i t attor ney ’s fees. W e di sag re e. In BHP Pet

ro leu m , the T exas Su prem e Court con clude d tha t w hen a “declarato ry jud g m e n t co untercl aim ha[s ] g re ater ramific ati ons than the o ri g ina l sui t,” the cour t may all ow the count er cl aim. 800 S.W .2d a t 842

. BH P Pet ro leu m ( “B HP ”) , a produce r and seller of n atu ral gas, brou ght su it in Ha rris Coun ty against ANR P ipeline Co mp any (“ ANR”), an ent ity eng ag ed i n the purchas ing , t ra nspor ti ng , and s ell ing of natural g as, for v ar iou s breache s o f contract

. Id. at 839. AN R filed an o ri g ina l a n sw er and count ercl aim for decl arator

y reli e f as ser ti ng , among othe r thi ng s, “t hat rev olu ti onar y ch ang es in the int ersta te natural g as ind ust ry hav e c ombine d to ex cus e AN R’ s c ust omers from obl ig ati on to gas f rom ANR . . . .” Id. at 8 3 9 & n.4 . Th e sup reme court no ted that“BHP’s suit is20

ess enti all y

one for breach of the ‘ tak e- or-p ay ’ obl ig ati on of the g as purchas e c ontractand ‘conse quentia l dam ages’ and requested relief for u nde rpaymen t for A NR’s alleged failure to pu rchase or pay for specif ic q uan tities of BHP’s g as . . . . ” Id. a t 84 2. Th e s up rem e court f urthe r noted tha t “ANR’s coun terclaim sought an interp retat ion of the gas purcha se cont ra ct wh ich w oul d hav e the effectof defini ng the obl ig ati ons of the par ti es under

the c o ntractfor the forese eab le f utu re.” Id. B a s e d o n t h e u n c e rt a i n t y c re a t e d b y

c h ang ing ind ust ry co ndi ti ons, the supreme courtconcl uded that t he AN R’ s c ountercl aim had g re ater ra mific ati ons than BHP ’s ori g ina l sui t and, th erefore, all ow ed th e c ountercl aim to remain. Id. Here, S andpi per ’s c o u n tercl aim does not h av e g re ater ramific ati ons than the under ly ing su iti nst it uted by Shiol eno. In fact, S andpi per st ated in it s first amended or ig ina l answ er and count er cl aim that it“ ass erts a c ountercl aim ag ain st Antho ny J. Shi ole no and SR I Proper

ti es, Inc ., count erdefendants, for a decl arati on . . . thatthe Cou nci l has act ed in acc ordance w it h the D ecl arati on and By laws of the Sandpi per Condomi niu m and for

the Cou nci l’ s a ttor ney s’ [s ic ] fees. ” U nli ke AN R in BHP Pet ro leu m , Sa n d p iper cer

tai nly has not a ll eg ed th at extraordin ar y ci rc umstan ces hav e ar is en that w oul d g ov er n the obl ig ati ons of the par

ti es in the foreseea ble future. See i d. at 83 9, 84 2 & n.4. Ins tead, the is sues raised in San dpip er’s count erclaim a re precisely the issues tha t are dispu ted in Shiolen o’s sui t. In Placid Oil , app ell ant b ro ug ht a breach of contractcl aim ag ain st appel lee , Loui si ana G as Intrast ate, In c. ( “L GI” ), per tai nin g to a g as sal es cont ra ct. 734 S.W .2d a t 2. Spec ific all y , Pl aci d Oi l cont ended t hat L GI had und er paid for g as sol d under the21

cont ra ct. Id. LGI count er cl aimed, seek ing decl arator y re li ef an d attor ney ’s fees. Id. LGI’s count er cl aim soug ht a decl arati on of r ig hts , sta tus , and leg al re lat ion s und e r th e gas purchas e c ontractw it h Pl aci d Oi l. Id. The tr ial cour t re ndered jud g ment for LG I o n its
co untercl aims and re ndered a tak e- nothi ng j udg ment ag ain st Pl aci d Oi l. Id. T h e D a l l as Cou rtof Appeal s a ff ir med the jud g ment of the tr ia l court and c oncl uded, among othe r thi ng s, that the t ri al cour t did not abuse it s dis creti on in aw ardin g LGI attor ney ’s fees bas ed upon i ts count er cl aim for dec larator y j udg ment. Id. at 5- 6. The cour t s peci fical ly

note d tha t the “[DJA] g ave the trial court discretio n to award atto rney’s fees. ” Id. at 5. Unl ik e here, th e c o u rt i n Placid Oil co ncl uded t hat L GI had c ompli ed w it h the under ly ing co ntract

. Id. at 3- 5. In fact , t he Placid Oil co urt w as faced w it h i ss ues per tai nin g t o c h o ic e o f

l a w —wh e t h e r T e xa s o r L o u is ia n a la w a p p li e d

— a n d t h e d e f in it io n o f in d u s t ryspec ificterms g ov er nin g the g as sal es cont ra ct. Id. Fur ther more, Pl aci d Oi l did not appeal the p ro pr iety

of LGI’ s c ountercl aim w it h respect t o j ust ic iab il ity . As a resu lt , t he Placid Oil
cour t di d notaddress t h e j u st ic iab il ity of LGI’ s c ountercl aim for dec larator y reli ef. In
aw ardin g LGI att or ney ’s fees, the D all as Cou rtof Appeal s rel ied so lel y on t he fact that the DJ A prov ide s that a tr ial cour t may aw ard attor ney ’s fees i n i ts dis creti on. See i d. Ba sed
o n t h e fo re g o i n g , w e d o n o t fi n d t h e h o l d i n g s i n B HP Pe t ro le u m and Placid Oil to be persuas iv e i n thi s matter

. W e the re fore c oncl ude that Sandpi per , in its countercl aim, fail ed to pres ent a justi ci abl e controv ersy apart from Shiol eno’ s sui t. See Hitchcock Prop s., Inc. , 776 S. W .2d a t 239 ; see a lso Narisi , 715 S.W .2d a t 51- 52. W ith respe ct to attorne y ’s fees, the DJA allow s the trial court to aw ard reaso nab le and neces sar

y attor ney ’s fees that the c our t c onsi ders t o be eq uit abl e and jus t. T EX . C IV .22

P R AC . & R EM . C OD E A NN . § 37.009 (V er non 1997)

. How ev er , t he aw ard of atto rn ey ’s fees under the DJ A is a matt er

of dis creti on. Robe rson v. City of Austin , 157 S.W .3d 1 30, 1 37 (Tex . Ap p.–Aus ti n 2005, pet. deni ed)

. “A prev ail ing par

ty i n a d ecl arator

y j udg ment acti on is n ot ent itled to atto rney’s fees simp ly as a ma tter of

law ; ent itlem entdep end s on w hatis equitab le and just and the trial judges’ power is in t hatrespect d iscretiona ry .” Id. (q uoti ng Uni fied Loan s v

. Pe tti joh n , 955 S.W .2d 649 , 654 (Tex. App. –Au stin 19 97, no pe t.)). In this
cas e, t he tr ial co urt aw ard Sand pip er $10, 759.00 in attor ney ’s f ees based upon it s c o n c l u s i o n t hat Sand p i p e r h a d b ro u g h ta v i a b l e c o u n t e r c l a i m fo r d e c l a ra t o r

y re l i e f. Beca use Sandpi per ’s c o u n te rc lai m fail ed to presenta j ust ic iab le cont ro v ersy apar t from Shi ole no’ s s uit , w e c oncl ude t hat t he tr ial cour t abu sed it s d is creti on i n aw ardin g Sandp ipe r attor ney ’s fees. Ac cordin g ly , w e s ust ain Shiol e n o ’s s econd , t hird, an d s ixth i ss ues on appeal

. C. F in anci al Obl ig at io ns and the Ri gh t t o In spec t a N on -P ro fi t Co rp orat io n’ s B oo ks and Records By i ts fifth is sue, Shi ole no arg ues that financi al obl ig ati ons canno t be impos ed upon a me mb e r re q u e s t i n g t o i n s p e c t re c o rd s o f a c o n d o mi n i u m a s s o c i a t i o n u n d e r e it her the Tex as Uni form C ondomi niu m Act o r th e assoc iat ion ’s by laws. Shi ole no al so arg ues on appeal th a tt h e t r i a l c o u rtd i d n o th a v e s u bj e c tm a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r

i n s p e c t i o n fe es becau se thi s i ss ue w as nei ther before the t ri al cour

t nor w as a j ust ic iab le cont ro v ersy that the t ri al cour

t c oul d resol v e. The Tex as No n -P rofit C or porati on Act prov ide s for ex aminat ion and copy ing of books and re cords, at the member ’s ex pense . T EX . R EV . C IV . S T AT . A NN . art. 1396- 2.23.23

Shi ole no arg ues it did not seek re li ef un der the Tex as Non -P ro fit C or porati on Act, ra ther base d its rig ht of

inspect ion on the asso ciation ’s by law s and the T exas Unifo rm Con domini um Ac t, nei ther of w hic h prov ide for c ost s o f ex aminat io n . None thel ess , t he Tex as Non -P ro fit C or porati on Act c lea rl y a p p lie s to t his di sput e, an d the tr ial co urt w as enti tl ed to cons ide r it in it s j udg ment. See i d. ; se e also KB Hom e v. Employe rs Mut. Cas. Co. , N o. 2- 06- 383- CV , 200 8 Tex

. App. LEX IS 771, at * 16 ( Tex . Ap p.–F ort W orth J an. 3 1, 2008, no pet .) ( noti ng that “ iti s a x iomat icthatar

tful pl eadi ng ca nnot chang e the ch aract er of a law suit. In the v erna cular, calli ng a duck a chicken doe s not m ake it so”); Head v . U.S. Insp ect DFW

, Inc. , 15 9 S. W

. 3 d 73 1 , 74 2 ( Te x . Ap p . – F o rtW o rt h 20 0 5 , no pe t

. ) ( “ Ap l a i n t i ff by artf ul plea ding cann ot recasta claim in orde r to av oid th e ad v erse ef fect of a statu te.”); Al m a Gr oup, L.L.C . v

. Pa lm er , 143 S.W .3d 840, 843-4 4 (Tex . App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2004, pet. deni ed) (st ati ng , among other thing s, thata tr ial co urt has no d is creti on i n dec idi ng the law or i ts proper

appl ic ati on)

. Prior to ent ry

of ju dgme nt, Shio leno ’s co unse l stipulate d to pa y me nt of reason able admini strati v e ex pense s. Spec ific all y , Sh iol eno’ s c ounse l noted the fol low ing : And l et me cl ar ify

so methi ng , Y our

H onor . Mr . Sh iol e n o i s wi ll ing to pay for

— i f s om eb od y

from t he S an dp i pe r , or CCMS, ne ed s t o ha v e s om e adm inistrato r or someb ody spe n d time sh owi ng Mr . Gosm an th ese b ooks and record s , w e w ill be m ore tha n ha ppy to reimbu rse them for those expense s, butw e do n’t feel w e sho u ld h a v e to pa y for any unne cessary ex pense s; i. e. c opy ing of document s, w here the re ’s no n e e d t o co py docu me nts; i.e ., pa y ing fo r a t t orne y ’s fe es w hen there’s no reason —the re w as no reason for u s to ev en hav e to file a s uiti f they w oul d hav e c ompli ed w it h the ir obl ig ati ons to be g in w it h. T his stipula tion co uple d w ith the evidence at trial provides am ple suppo rt for the trial court’sS peci f i cal l y , C r awf or d t est i f i ed t hat i t w oul d t ake t wo t o t hr ee d ay s t o asse m bl e Sandp i per ’ s r ecor ds 18 and t hat t he h our l y ra t e f or K at hy V anna, C C M S’ s book k eeper , w as $50. 00 and h i s hou r l y r at e f or ov er seei ng t he i nspect i on was $80. 00. 24 jud g ment. 18 Acc ordin g ly , w e ov er ru le Shi ole no’ s fifth i ss ue. III . C ONCL US I ON W e rev erse the judg ment of the tr ial co urt and remand for proceed ing s c onsi ste nt
w ith this op inion w ith respe ct to Shioleno ’s inspe ction ri ghts and Sand pipe r’s declarato ry ju d gm e n ta c t io n . Ho we ve r, we a f f ir m t h e t ri a l co u rt ’s a wa rd o f re a s o n a b le a d m in is t ra t ive e xp e n s e s . W e n e e d n o ta d d re s s S h io le n o ’s fo u rt h is s u e o n a p p e a l g ive n t h a twe h a ve conc lud ed th at S andpi per ’s co unterc la im did not p re senta j ust ic iab le cont ro v ersy . See T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.1.

_________ _________

_________

___ DO RI C ON TRERAS G AR ZA, J u s t i c e Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s t he 17t h day

of Jul y , 200 8.